Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

> Jen Linkova wrote : > As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening > here, especially after the list has been quiet for a while. As a matter of fact, it was so quiet that I forgot that I once subscribed to it. Don't worry; I am about to unsubscribe. > I'm less excited to see

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:12 PM Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if I > instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg > co-chair or so. YeahJens, maybe before we start discussing the renaming the

[ipv6-wg] [official] What Shall This WG Do

Hello, dear IPv[0-9] enthusiasts, supporters and zealots, As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening here, especially after the list has been quiet for a while. I'm less excited to see that some people have started giving up hope and telling the rest of use we shall give up to..

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:04 AM Enno Rey wrote: > I support the proposal. > Once a protocol has reached mainstream deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated > WG might no longer be needed. I mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right? Actually it's exactly what I said after I became a co-chair. Our

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:34 PM Jens Link wrote: > after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1] > IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will > not work. > > Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded I suspect that the fact that one member has lost his faith

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi Wolfgang, On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:41 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > ... the default network at RIPE Meetings is the dual-stack network, with > the IPv6-only (NAT64) network as a barely used extra which is "supported > on a best effort basis". With the effect that almost no-one except a few >

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:45 PM Blake wrote: > As the OP's goal seems to be XKCD standards compliance(1), perhaps it's time > to revive IPv10? Well, if it's what you want to do - this list is the wrong place. https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/get-started/ is what you probably need.. >

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

* Enno Rey (e...@ernw.de) [191004 19:09]: > they've not yet started to creep into my dreams, but let's see...) I wouldn't want that to happen. Take your time. > You won't be surprised though that not everybody in my daily > meetings shares the perspective that they're a top priority ;-).

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

> Dave Taht wrote : > https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/tree/master/rfcs > I'd like lots more folk to review this before we punt it up to iana and the > ietf, IMHO, 240/4 is worth the effort as an extension to RFC1918 but the rest of that (127/8, 0/8) is not worth the effort. One or

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Michel Py writes: > Hi Carlos, > >> Carlos Friaças wrote : >> We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real. >> Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago. > > Indeed, and so was I. WAS. As was I. Straws that broke my back finally were not being able to get a static IPv6

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Hi, On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote: > * Jens Link (li...@quux.de) [191004 11:26]: > > Enno Rey writes: > > > now back to my day job, full of #IPv6 > > > > So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get mail from $mailserver > > run by your new employer? > >

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi Carlos, > Carlos Friaças wrote : > We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real. > Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago. Indeed, and so was I. WAS. > But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point! Nobody cares about deployment rates.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 15:31, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > I'm sure everyone can agree on your only remaining point, namely that colons > are better than dots in every conceivable way. This is a sound technical > position btw. I will argue the case in exchange for beer and peanuts. Because beer

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Jens Link wrote on 03/10/2019 11:34: - IT MUST have NAT - It MUST have Classes - IT MUST have DHCP - It MUST have ARP - It should be possible to drop ICMP the same impact as in IPv4. Many experts I talked to over the years told me that blocking ICMP has no negative impacts. - It MUST only

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

* Jens Link (li...@quux.de) [191004 11:26]: > Enno Rey writes: > > now back to my day job, full of #IPv6 > > So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get mail from $mailserver > run by your new employer? Nope. At least all their MXes are still legacy. But these changes need time. I

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Am Thu, 03 Oct 2019 schrieb Gert Doering: > I could use an expert that explains to me this click-and-paste stuff > with modern browsers... Uuuuh, Ooooh. Let's roll out 100% IPv6 globally first. That's low hanging fruit, compared to that click-and-paste stuff ;-) bbu

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you just got that slightly wrong:

[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

As the OP's goal seems to be XKCD standards compliance(1), perhaps it's time to revive IPv10? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11 After all, it took Edison two decades to admit DC power distribution couldn't work, & NYC only had to wait a century more until they could decommission

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Enno Rey writes: > Hi, > > I support the proposal. Once a protocol has reached mainstream > deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated WG might no longer be needed. I > mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right? > > now back to my day job, full of #IPv6 So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond writes: > Dear Jens, > > you're right. I also think that TCP-IP is unable to cope with today's > Internet traffic and we should use a modern protocol like X.25: the > problem with IPv6 is not the v6 part, it's the IP. Kindest regards, Back to OSI? I like that!

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Riccardo Gori writes: >>> 1. WHY should it have NAT >> NATs are good. They provide security. > > Are you sure you are about networking? People believer this so it must be true.I wont question the believes and wisdom of thousands of networking experts. Jens --

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi, I think it boils down to a) deploy IPv6 where it makes sense for you to do so. b) remove IPv4 where it makes sense for you to do so. What “makes sense” for different people, organisations, and communities will differ. Stratgies at say Facebook and TalkTalk differ wildly. Tim On 4 Oct

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Alexander Koeppe wrote: Am 04.10.2019 um 00:22 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering : So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool will have run dry by then anyway? The fact the pool runs dry doesn't mean IPv4 packets will stop flowing. It

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Am 04.10.2019 um 00:22 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering mailto:wusel...@uu.org>>: So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool will have run dry by then anyway? I like this idea. This message and any attachment are confidential and may be

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi WG, We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real. Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago. I guess i understood i wasn't in that group anymore when i tried to help fix IPv4 distribution policies, while hearing some others say: "Don't touch that, let it burn fast!