I think the answer, to a significant degree, depends upon exactly what you mean by "IPv4 related work." For example, the ForCES work may or may not be useful. It certainly needs to work with and over IPv6. But if we did not make sure it worked with and over IPv4, then no one would use it, as a router that doesn't handle IPv4 is not acceptable.
Similarly, if SIP were to refuse to carry IPv4 addresses in its headers, that would be severely counter-productive. Even the RRG work is taking the view that any proposed new architecture has to provide value to and connectivity with folks who have IPv4, if it is going to be adopted. Even the plenaries last week noticed that a plan based on co-existence makes a lot more sense than an assumption of transition. IPv4 is going to be used for a LONG time. And it will be the bulk of the usage for quite a while. Pretending otherwise is just not effective. Yours, Joel M. Halpern Thierry Ernst wrote: > Bob Hinden wrote: >> Iljitsch, >>>> The only scenario that makes sense to me to use 240/4 as >>>> non-reserved address space is if it's use can help move us to IPv6 >>>> (e.g., Plan A). >>> >>> By that logic, shouldn't we stop all IPv4-related work? >> >> Yes. > > That was a good question to ask indeed ;-) > > A different topic than this thread , but a good one to ask, so I changed > the subject line. > > 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". > > Thierry > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
