At 11:33 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes'
<draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-09-02. Exceptionally, comments
may be
From Section 1:
"However, due to the success of the Internet in finding new and
innovative uses for IP networking, billions of hosts are now
connected via the Internet and requiring unique addressing."
That sounds like the requirement for unique addressing is a
problem. The draft mentions that demand has lead to the exhaustion
of the IANA global pool of unique IPv4 addresses. Should the above
be read as "requiring unique IPv4 addressing"?
"The exhaustion of IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet
worldwide has created the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment."
As a nit, that should be "exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 global pool".
"However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
throughout the industry."
Quoting RFC 5218:
'The lack of a value chain can make it difficult for a new protocol to
progress from implementation to deployment to use. While the term
"chicken-and-egg" problem is sometimes used to describe the lack of a
value chain, the lack of implementation, deployment, or use is not
the cause of failure, it is merely a symptom.'
The assertion that the problem is a lack of ubiquitous hardware and
software support throughout the industry is incorrect. It is the
lack of the value chain that has hampered IPv6 deployment.
'Many vendors, especially in the consumer space have continued to
view IPv6 support as optional. Even today they are still selling
"IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices which are not IPv6-capable,
which has continued to push out the point at which the natural hardware
refresh cycle will significantly increase IPv6 support in the average
home or enterprise network.'
Many vendors in the consumer space such as Internet Service Providers
still view IPv6 support as optional. They are still pushing the
"Internet" as an IPv4 medium only. Considering that I am living on
an IPV6 island, let's see whether the following domains would accept
my messages:
icann.org
ietf.org
itu.int
Let's push this further by sampling domains in recent RFCs:
cisco.com
ericsson.com
alcatel-lucent.com
nttv6.net
juniper.net
nokia.com
huawei.com
us.ibm.com
microsoft.com
orange-ftgroup.com
For anyone who doesn't want the bother to figure it out, the answer is two.
Even if the average home gets an IPv6-capable device, that would not
get it any further due to last-mile issues. The ISP probably forgot
to include RFC 2460 support as part of its requirements. Now, you
can understand why "they" (not referring to any specific group) find
it difficult to wean off 32-bit integers.
"For the same reason that the average consumer is not making a
purchasing decision based on the presence of IPv6 support in
their Internet-capable devices and services, consumers are
unlikely to replace their still-functional Internet-capable
devices simply to add IPv6 support - they don't know or don't
care about IPv6, they simply want their devices to work as
advertised."
Consumers are likely to replace their still-functioning
Internet-capable device if they perceive that it will help them
fulfill a "want". Anyway, let's get to the meat of the draft.
From Section 2:
'Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the
generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4." Since
RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP in
this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4 +
IPv6.'
The title of RFC 1812 is "Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers". The update proposed in this draft causes even more
confusion as it is unclear what text is being updated in RFC 1812.
'Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
Internet Protocol suite by itself.'
This second update is again confusing as text does not get updated
"for example". As the intended status of this draft is Proposed
Standard, there is a presumption that if it is going to update STD 3,
it will do so clearly.
'Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4,
"Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This
is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to
defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full
Internet Connectivity."
I don't consider this as a valid reason to update BCP 104. The
"document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be
helpful to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in
clarifying the type and character of services being offered". Moving
version support from Section 4 to Section 2 does not make the
document more helpful. I get blank stares when I ask about "IP
dresses". I have yet to find out what will happen when I ask about
"IP sex dresses".
Seriously, BCPs, in general, are about what's happening in the wild
and not IETF wishful thinking. If you are going to take a RFC
written for a wider audience and stick an "Updated by" into it, the
reader might not see the change.
"Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards
to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of
standalone documents which cover IPv6."
Was there a reason for that?
"From a practical perspective, the requirements proposed by this draft
mean that:
New IP implementations MUST support IPv6."
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 has an informative reference to
RFC 2460. Do I have to understand what IPv6 is about if it is
required that my new IP implementation supports it?
BTW, this draft has nine pages and four authors. The 162-page draft
I read recently has five authors. "If there is a desire to
demonstrate how many companies are interested in this spec, a simple
acknowledgment section can accomplish the same thing".
I do not support the publication of this document as a RFC. It
attempts to update old RFCs which are well-written in a confusing
manner. The draft comes out as a statement about "IPv6-required"
instead of a Proposed Standard.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf