"Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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. It is true. The core IPv6 work is done. And has been for a number of years. True, there are still WGs doing work on IPv6-related technologies (or is that technologies that happen to be IPv6-enabled?) But the same is true for IPv4 as well. But the idea that IPv6 is not yet "done", and folk should wait for the IETF to finish one more key piece of work before deploying is not true, and that message needs to go out loud and clear. IPv6 is what it is. People may not like it, or wish it also did a number of things that it doesn't, but that is not the same thing as saying that the IETF is still doing key work on IPv6 that needs to complete before it is ready for deployment. > 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, what aspect of DHCv6 is not stable and ready to deploy? > ULA, No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy IPv6? A lot of people say absolutely not. (And people seem to forget that RFC4193 covers 90% of what ULAs do.) > routing header, The IETF just deprecated an unused feature (due to potential security issues). In the overall scheme of things, that doesn't make IPv6 any more or less ready to deploy. > RA They work fine and are part of the long-stable core. Sure, people continue to (and likely will forever) debate adding yet another option. That is is fine and expected. Indeed, that is exactly what people do for DHCPv4 (and other protocols) as well. > ND Sure, people propose yet more extensions and features. Do not confuse that with "ND is not stable and is still changing". > 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. If the criteria for a technology being "mature" and "done" is how may IDs are being submitted, then a whole lot of IETF technology must be pretty unstable! All that said, work will continue on IPv6 tweaking/revising/etc. in response to deployment experience/feedback. That is exactly as it should be. But that is no different than for any other IETF technology, and it does not mean that the technology is not "ready" or "done". In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is that driven by a clear and compelling need from folk that are seriously trying to deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap in available standards. I don't doubt there is some work to be done here, but it needs to be driven by a real, concrete need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus". Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf