----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:30 PM Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt > > A little more background/context that got me here. > > My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs > have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6 > deployment. I think the IETF can say a bit more about why, and the > threats to the internet architecture. (This came out of some > conversations I had at the recent ICANN meeting). > > Maybe this could be an IAB statement. Maybe an IETF statement. I'm not > sure. But I think it would be useful to have an "IETF voice" also be > heard in the call for deployment. Especially since there are still > some going around saying "IPv6 is not needed." "IPv6 is still not > done, so don't deploy yet", etc. Does the IETF think that deploying > IPv6 is necessary and in the best interest of the Internet? If so, > reiterating that would be good. > > I think though that it needs to be relatively short (which I probably > have already blown), and high-level, since it's really aimed at higher > level than your typical engineer. But the overal message needs to be > "think really hard about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means to your > business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait". > Trouble is, I am not convinced that the last statement is true. Some WGs produce a set of RFC and then say that's it, let's deploy, let's learn and come back in a year or two if we need to. Others, like ipng, seem to have tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve - or at least to change things - so let's go on changing. The name may change - now it's 6man - but the discussions, - DHCP, ULA, routing header, RA, ND, compression, it's more than IPv4(128) - rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so long as that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads me to conclude, it's not done, better wait. On the other hand, I do understand well that there is a problem looming with ipv4 and that lack of action could turn that into a crisis and drama over which the IETF will have little or no control. Tom Petch <snip> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf