Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Renumbering still needs work '
<draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-03.txt> as an Informational RFC
It is a very important subject for the Internet.
Agreed.
However, scope of the document is seemingly wrong.
Surely, it's important to document how wrongly IPv4 and IPv6 was
architected against renumbering.
But, it is simply impossible to add work to IPv4 or IPv6 to make
renumbering feasible.
What we need for the future Internet is a clean slate approach to
define new IP, definitely not toooooo complicated IPv6.
That's another reason not to deploy IPv6 but to migrate from IPv4
directly to something else.
Mean while, NAT, including End to End NAT, which is transparent end
to end, will help us to preserve IPv4 address space for next 10 or 20
years.
I've read the
document, and I believe it is complete and correct (the title
summarizes the conclusion quite nicely). (I've specially focused on
the DNS section.)
As is discussed recently in DNS WGs that making DNS message size
larger with EDNS is virtually impossible, it is virtually impossible
to change widely deployed improper implementations.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf