nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:13:15 -0400
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of the way.If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RFC that changes the word "experimental" to "something else".
Yes. Even me.
But you do not want IANA and the 5 RIRs to implement policies to hand out this space.
I dont consider that a necessary part of status change.
Nor do you expect any vendor to change anything?
I dont expect them to change anything unless experimental/reserved for future potentially non-unicast protocol behavior is removed from IETF standards.
May i then suggest that "something else" could be "junk" or "useless" ?
Which would still render software that refused to allow use of the space non standards compliant, so I can accept that as a starting basis.
Fact is that it is junk. It is probably not even routable in the default free zone.
Anyone up for an experiment? Probably need to change the standards first.
Nobody is going to want a class E address. Even if your own equipment was updated to allow it, you would not be able to communicate with most of the internet. Tell me, in what timeframe do you expect that would change, if someone did write that RFC and got it approved?
A lot sooner if people would stop complaining that it takes too long. Otherwise, never.
You got it all wrong when you believe it is a top down decision. It is the opposite. You are fighting _consensus_. Nobody wants to change the status of class E because it would not work and would only confuse. Regards, Baldur
Plenty of people want(ed) to change the status. The objections of the naysayers amount(ed) to, we think it will take too long to be usable in equivalent fashion to current unicast, and we think if it ever is usable it wont be enough of a difference to have made it worth it and we want ipv6 instead so we dont want anyone to even try.
Even if all those objections are valid, they still do not justify doing nothing.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Jared Mauch (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Doug Barton (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Jacques Latour (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Andrews (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion John Levine (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Baldur Norddahl (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Shane Ronan (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 18)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Lee Howard (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Lee Howard (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion John Levine (Jul 15)