Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 11:33 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes'
  <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-09-02. Exceptionally, comments may be

From Section 1:

  "However, due to the success of the Internet in finding new and
   innovative uses for IP networking, billions of hosts are now
   connected via the Internet and requiring unique addressing."

That sounds like the requirement for unique addressing is a problem. The draft mentions that demand has lead to the exhaustion of the IANA global pool of unique IPv4 addresses. Should the above be read as "requiring unique IPv4 addressing"?

  "The exhaustion of IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet
    worldwide has created the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment."

As a nit, that should be "exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 global pool".

  "However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
   been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
   throughout the industry."

Quoting RFC 5218:

  'The lack of a value chain can make it difficult for a new protocol to
   progress from implementation to deployment to use.  While the term
   "chicken-and-egg" problem is sometimes used to describe the lack of a
   value chain, the lack of implementation, deployment, or use is not
   the cause of failure, it is merely a symptom.'

The assertion that the problem is a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support throughout the industry is incorrect. It is the lack of the value chain that has hampered IPv6 deployment.

  'Many vendors, especially in the consumer space have continued to
   view IPv6 support as optional. Even today they are still selling
   "IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices which are not IPv6-capable,
   which has continued to push out the point at which the natural hardware
   refresh cycle will significantly increase IPv6 support in the average
   home or enterprise network.'

Many vendors in the consumer space such as Internet Service Providers still view IPv6 support as optional. They are still pushing the "Internet" as an IPv4 medium only. Considering that I am living on an IPV6 island, let's see whether the following domains would accept my messages:

  icann.org
  ietf.org
  itu.int

Let's push this further by sampling domains in recent RFCs:

  cisco.com
  ericsson.com
  alcatel-lucent.com
  nttv6.net
  juniper.net
  nokia.com
  huawei.com
  us.ibm.com
  microsoft.com
  orange-ftgroup.com

For anyone who doesn't want the bother to figure it out, the answer is two.

Even if the average home gets an IPv6-capable device, that would not get it any further due to last-mile issues. The ISP probably forgot to include RFC 2460 support as part of its requirements. Now, you can understand why "they" (not referring to any specific group) find it difficult to wean off 32-bit integers.

  "For the same reason that the average consumer is not making a
   purchasing decision based on the presence of IPv6 support in
   their Internet-capable devices and services, consumers are
   unlikely to replace their still-functional Internet-capable
   devices simply to add IPv6 support - they don't know or don't
   care about IPv6, they simply want their devices to work as
   advertised."

Consumers are likely to replace their still-functioning Internet-capable device if they perceive that it will help them fulfill a "want". Anyway, let's get to the meat of the draft.

From Section 2:

  'Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the
   generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4."  Since
   RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP in
   this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4 +
   IPv6.'

The title of RFC 1812 is "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers". The update proposed in this draft causes even more confusion as it is unclear what text is being updated in RFC 1812.

  'Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
   section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
   term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
   Internet Protocol suite by itself.'

This second update is again confusing as text does not get updated "for example". As the intended status of this draft is Proposed Standard, there is a presumption that if it is going to update STD 3, it will do so clearly.

  'Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4,
   "Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This
   is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to
   defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full
   Internet Connectivity."

I don't consider this as a valid reason to update BCP 104. The "document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the type and character of services being offered". Moving version support from Section 4 to Section 2 does not make the document more helpful. I get blank stares when I ask about "IP dresses". I have yet to find out what will happen when I ask about "IP sex dresses".

Seriously, BCPs, in general, are about what's happening in the wild and not IETF wishful thinking. If you are going to take a RFC written for a wider audience and stick an "Updated by" into it, the reader might not see the change.

  "Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards
   to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of
   standalone documents which cover IPv6."

Was there a reason for that?

  "From a practical perspective, the requirements proposed by this draft
   mean that:

      New IP implementations MUST support IPv6."

draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 has an informative reference to RFC 2460. Do I have to understand what IPv6 is about if it is required that my new IP implementation supports it?

BTW, this draft has nine pages and four authors. The 162-page draft I read recently has five authors. "If there is a desire to demonstrate how many companies are interested in this spec, a simple acknowledgment section can accomplish the same thing".

I do not support the publication of this document as a RFC. It attempts to update old RFCs which are well-written in a confusing manner. The draft comes out as a statement about "IPv6-required" instead of a Proposed Standard.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]