On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Thierry Ernst wrote:
I understand the need to fix IPv4 when there is a need to fix a bug
or an existing feature in a deployed protocol, but I don't
understand why the IETF is not cutting new proposed work items that
intend to provide new features to IPv4.
This uses important IETF CPU cycles and energy that we cannot
afford to pay as a community. One cannot fight two wars at once,
and the one we need to win right now is "IPv6 deployment".
I respectfully disagree...
IMO, our one "war" should be the continued growth and operational
stability of the Internet. The deployment of IPv4, IPv6 or other
protocols may be means to that end, but they aren't ends in themselves.
We have concentrated a lot of effort on supporting IPv6 deployment
and should continue to do so, because we believe it is necessary to
sustain the growth of the Internet through the next decade.
However, there is no reason to believe that current IPv4-only sites
will magically transform into IPv6-only sites any time in the near
future, especially given the fact that it still isn't practical for
an IPv6-only node (or a dual stack node with no IPv4 addresses
configured) to connect to the Internet and access many common
Internet sites and services. So, we _also_ need to do the work
necessary to keep IPv4 stable and fully operational.
Please note that I'm not commenting on the 240/4 proposal, per se. I
don't see any significant value in declaring 240/4 to be _yet
another_ private IPv4 address space. Without a more complete
understanding of how widely deployed stacks and popular products will
treat addresses in the 240/4 range, I don't know whether it would be
a good idea to attempt to use these addresses as global IPv4 unicast
addresses either. Perhaps a survey of existing implementations is in
order?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
