On 12/11/2014 2:11 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > The goal isn't IPv6, though—the goal is a functioning, interoperable > Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism to > achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are > temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a > Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools? The goal isn't Proposed Standard for temporary transition tools. The goal is a functioning, interoperable Internet. Standardization is a means of providing common, interoperable capabilities. If a tool will facilitate interoperability, then standardizing it can facilitate its adoption. When pursuing transitions in open, diverse environments, calling a tool 'temporary' is mostly a political statement that seeks to marginalize the tool, since transition on the Internet is often measured in decades. Seriously, we have no idea how long these tools will get used, but we do have experience over the years that says large-scale transitions -- especially when involving very large number of highly independent decisions makers -- takes a very, very long time. And saying 'decades' is not stretching was can be expected. By most criteria, calling that "temporary" is functionally wrong. I suppose the other approach we can take is to say that we will ignore 95% of Google's users, until they adopt IPv6. That seems to be the implication of refusing to pursue IPv4-based tools in the IETF. However that sort of coercive customer service model has its own downsides. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net