Masataka,
You say: "scope of the document is seemingly wrong."
Well, the scope of the document is to discuss how actual networks
running IPv4 and IPv6 can deal with renumbering. That can't be "wrong";
it is simply what we chose to write about.
If you'd like to start a thread about IPng, can you use a different
subject header please?
Regards
Brian
On 2009-09-11 01:00, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>>> the following document:
>>>
>>> - 'Renumbering still needs work '
>>> <draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-03.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
>> It is a very important subject for the Internet.
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, scope of the document is seemingly wrong.
>
> Surely, it's important to document how wrongly IPv4 and IPv6 was
> architected against renumbering.
>
> But, it is simply impossible to add work to IPv4 or IPv6 to make
> renumbering feasible.
>
> What we need for the future Internet is a clean slate approach to
> define new IP, definitely not toooooo complicated IPv6.
>
> That's another reason not to deploy IPv6 but to migrate from IPv4
> directly to something else.
>
> Mean while, NAT, including End to End NAT, which is transparent end
> to end, will help us to preserve IPv4 address space for next 10 or 20
> years.
>
>> I've read the
>> document, and I believe it is complete and correct (the title
>> summarizes the conclusion quite nicely). (I've specially focused on
>> the DNS section.)
>
> As is discussed recently in DNS WGs that making DNS message size
> larger with EDNS is virtually impossible, it is virtually impossible
> to change widely deployed improper implementations.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf