From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
The ietf did act. It is called ipv6.
[WEG] <sarcasm> thanks for that wonderfully relevant and technical rebuttal.
I'm so glad we've stopped debating philosophy and religion in this thread and
gotten down to solving technical problems. I'll be sure to tell all of my
customers (and my shareholders, for that matter) that when they call to ask why
their new internet-enabled TV, Xbox Live/PSN, Skype, etc doesn't work on my
IETF-approved (IPv6-only) Internet service. </sarcasm>
I don't know how much clearer I can make this, so I'll keep repeating it until
it hopefully sinks in:
Independent of whether we have any left, continued support for IPv4 in the home
and enterprise is *non-negotiable*, no matter how many people stand atop the
IETF soapbox and decree that it MUST be otherwise because IPv6 exists. I would
also like it to be different, but there are a *lot* of stars that have to align
before it actually is, most of which are not in my control. It's
extraordinarily unproductive to vilify a group of operators as the singular
scapegoat for IPv6's failure to generate critical mass when all they're trying
to do is keep their network running and their customers happy, especially since
they're simultaneously deploying IPv6, not using CGN to avoid it as folks on
this list seem so quick to assume. If you have a way to convince my customers
(or anyone else's) that they don't need IPv4 anymore, be my guest.
Until then, let's stick to solutions to the actual problem, shall we? Saying
that IPv6 is a solution to an IPv4 CGN implementation problem is like saying
that a railroad car is a perfectly acceptable alternative to renting a truck to
move the contents of my house across town without considering whether both my
source and destination are in reasonable proximity to the railroad tracks. Or
worse yet, saying that I shouldn't be moving house in the first place because
trucks are scarce and less efficient than rail cars.
And, they underscored that point by rejecting various past attempts at
expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4.
[WEG] Every argument I've ever heard regarding 240/4 was related to the
difficulty of ensuring that it was going to work *everywhere* just like the
rest of the currently allocated IPv4 space. It's similar to the problems
associated with going to CIDR, but the installed base is much, much larger. The
concern was that most, if not all router and host stacks would have to be
updated to make it work. Even if it was only commenting out a few lines of
code, that was viewed as a virtual impossibility, making it impractical to
consider releasing the space for general use. I'm disappointed that the space
wasn't simply released (even as additional private/experimental space) with the
caveat that it may not work on old equipment, and then allow the market to
decide how important it was to fix such equipment, even if just for specific
use cases rather than globally routable space.
IPv6 figured into the discussion, but only as a follow-on to the above. That
is, it makes far more sense to expend efforts to ensure good support for IPv6
if we're proposing modifying the host stacks of lots of devices, as well as the
idea that by the time we fixed 240/4, IPv6 would be well-deployed, and everyone
would have their own personal 128 bit unicorn to ride, making this a case of
too little too late. Depending on how far back in time you rewind, I think at
least that latter point has been proven wrong repeatedly, and subsequent
attempts to cut our losses and try to fix a previous poor assumption have been
unsuccessful.
I think that when people look back on the IPv4 to IPv6 transition, 240/4 will
be a great example of IETF's hubris and failure to use all of the tools
available to them in the name of upholding some misguided sense of principles
(no matter how noble they might be) or forcing people to do it our way because
there's no way that we could be wrong. I would still support releasing 240/4,
but I don't think that it's a solution for this problem.
Wes George
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf