From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne > The ietf did act. It is called ipv6. [WEG] <sarcasm> thanks for that wonderfully relevant and technical rebuttal. I'm so glad we've stopped debating philosophy and religion in this thread and gotten down to solving technical problems. I'll be sure to tell all of my customers (and my shareholders, for that matter) that when they call to ask why their new internet-enabled TV, Xbox Live/PSN, Skype, etc doesn't work on my IETF-approved (IPv6-only) Internet service. </sarcasm> I don't know how much clearer I can make this, so I'll keep repeating it until it hopefully sinks in: Independent of whether we have any left, continued support for IPv4 in the home and enterprise is *non-negotiable*, no matter how many people stand atop the IETF soapbox and decree that it MUST be otherwise because IPv6 exists. I would also like it to be different, but there are a *lot* of stars that have to align before it actually is, most of which are not in my control. It's extraordinarily unproductive to vilify a group of operators as the singular scapegoat for IPv6's failure to generate critical mass when all they're trying to do is keep their network running and their customers happy, especially since they're simultaneously deploying IPv6, not using CGN to avoid it as folks on this list seem so quick to assume. If you have a way to convince my customers (or anyone else's) that they don't need IPv4 anymore, be my guest. Until then, let's stick to solutions to the actual problem, shall we? Saying that IPv6 is a solution to an IPv4 CGN implementation problem is like saying that a railroad car is a perfectly acceptable alternative to renting a truck to move the contents of my house across town without considering whether both my source and destination are in reasonable proximity to the railroad tracks. Or worse yet, saying that I shouldn't be moving house in the first place because trucks are scarce and less efficient than rail cars. > > And, they underscored that point by rejecting various past attempts at expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4. [WEG] Every argument I've ever heard regarding 240/4 was related to the difficulty of ensuring that it was going to work *everywhere* just like the rest of the currently allocated IPv4 space. It's similar to the problems associated with going to CIDR, but the installed base is much, much larger. The concern was that most, if not all router and host stacks would have to be updated to make it work. Even if it was only commenting out a few lines of code, that was viewed as a virtual impossibility, making it impractical to consider releasing the space for general use. I'm disappointed that the space wasn't simply released (even as additional private/experimental space) with the caveat that it may not work on old equipment, and then allow the market to decide how important it was to fix such equipment, even if just for specific use cases rather than globally routable space. IPv6 figured into the discussion, but only as a follow-on to the above. That is, it makes far more sense to expend efforts to ensure good support for IPv6 if we're proposing modifying the host stacks of lots of devices, as well as the idea that by the time we fixed 240/4, IPv6 would be well-deployed, and everyone would have their own personal 128 bit unicorn to ride, making this a case of too little too late. Depending on how far back in time you rewind, I think at least that latter point has been proven wrong repeatedly, and subsequent attempts to cut our losses and try to fix a previous poor assumption have been unsuccessful. I think that when people look back on the IPv4 to IPv6 transition, 240/4 will be a great example of IETF's hubris and failure to use all of the tools available to them in the name of upholding some misguided sense of principles (no matter how noble they might be) or forcing people to do it our way because there's no way that we could be wrong. I would still support releasing 240/4, but I don't think that it's a solution for this problem. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf