Paul:
I think if we say "From the middle of next year, no more IPv4 RFCs or drafts please", then vendors and application developers will have to sit up and take notice. Remember, the protocols take between 6-36 months to be deployed for real, so what we'd actually be saying is "we don't think IPv4 is worth deploying from scratch after the middle of 2007". We'd be saying to application developers "Look, IPv4 isn't where you're going to make serious cash with innovative applications in the future, come play with IPv6".
Something about this thread confuses me :-0 Now maybe it is just me having my head down in the sand.. I work in the transport area mainly and last I checked:
1) TCP/SCTP and UDP all run over IPv6, in fact SCTP
(which I most work with :->) will setup an association
with BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the association,
I don't even have to choose, I get them both as long as
I open an AF_INET6 socket. :->2) I can't remember any transport area document in recent
history (course I don't read them all) that is just IPv4... Most
of the things popping around are the congestion control work
for high speed and things for false fast retransmit... and other
fun transport area stuff :-> No IPv4 specifis there ....3) I cannot, in writting an RFC, make the user of the socket interface do "s = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_SCTP);" At least I don't know how to specify that in a draft..
What I am saying is that a large part of the work in the IETF is rather
ambivilant to what the IP infrastructure is that is beneth it... is this not a
good thing?
Maybe y'all are refering to another area that I don't keep up on (which is most since I can barely keep up in transport) :->
R
-- Randall R. Stewart 815-477-2127 (office) 815-342-5222 (cell phone)