<at the bottom>
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
"Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> writes:
I think though that it needs to be relatively short (which I probably
have already blown), and high-level, since it's really aimed at higher
level than your typical engineer. But the overal message needs to be
"think really hard about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means to your
business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".
Trouble is, I am not convinced that the last statement is true.
It is true. The core IPv6 work is done. And has been for a number of
years.
True, there are still WGs doing work on IPv6-related technologies (or
is that technologies that happen to be IPv6-enabled?) But the same is
true for IPv4 as well.
But the idea that IPv6 is not yet "done", and folk should wait for the
IETF to finish one more key piece of work before deploying is not
true, and that message needs to go out loud and clear.
IPv6 is what it is. People may not like it, or wish it also did a
number of things that it doesn't, but that is not the same thing as
saying that the IETF is still doing key work on IPv6 that needs to
complete before it is ready for deployment.
Some WGs produce a set of RFC and then say that's it, let's deploy,
let's learn and come back in a year or two if we need to. Others,
like ipng, seem to have tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve
- or at least to change things - so let's go on changing. The name
may change - now it's 6man - but the discussions, - DHCP,
what aspect of DHCv6 is not stable and ready to deploy?
ULA,
No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy IPv6? A
lot of people say absolutely not. (And people seem to forget that
RFC4193 covers 90% of what ULAs do.)
routing header,
The IETF just deprecated an unused feature (due to potential security
issues). In the overall scheme of things, that doesn't make IPv6 any
more or less ready to deploy.
RA
They work fine and are part of the long-stable core.
Sure, people continue to (and likely will forever) debate adding yet
another option. That is is fine and expected. Indeed, that is exactly
what people do for DHCPv4 (and other protocols) as well.
ND
Sure, people propose yet more extensions and features. Do not confuse
that with "ND is not stable and is still changing".
compression, it's more than IPv4(128) -
rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant
experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so
long as that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads
me to conclude, it's not done, better wait.
If the criteria for a technology being "mature" and "done" is how may
IDs are being submitted, then a whole lot of IETF technology must be
pretty unstable!
All that said, work will continue on IPv6 tweaking/revising/etc. in
response to deployment experience/feedback. That is exactly as it
should be. But that is no different than for any other IETF
technology, and it does not mean that the technology is not "ready" or
"done".
In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is that driven by
a clear and compelling need from folk that are seriously trying to
deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap in available standards. I
don't doubt there is some work to be done here, but it needs to be
driven by a real, concrete need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus".
Thomas
Your reply is all very reasonable but I remain unpersuaded (and I suspect that
others will too). Have the discussions on m and o bits really finished? Has the
right balance been struck between RA and DHCP(see 6man in September)? Has NATPT
got a role to play (current discussions on this list seem to be reopening that
one)?
To quote Michael Dillon from the 6man list,
'Indeed. I'm not looking for a book at all, but an RFC which summarizes
the current state of IPv6 that can be used as an authoritative source to
win arguments with people who are still stuck in IPv4 thinking. At this
point, I have to trawl through dozens of RFCs looking for this
information, or else use one of the books Brian recommended and hope
that the fact of his recommendation holds some weight'
It's that "dozens of RFCs" that grabs my attention (and makes me think, how many
more?) For me, it's not enough to say 'we are done'; we need to do more, like
produce the that ultimate RFC as well (well, ultimate until the experience of
deployment demands a change).
Tom Petch
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf