On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... and they might perhaps figure out some technology wheeze that we did not notice, or which was less pure than we would accept, but none the less acceptable to most users, and thereby find a way to extend the service life of IPv4.On 29/09/2017 15:59, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Lee Howard <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Then change the name to NPv4?
Do we care what people do on their private networks? Is it any of our business?
Lee
Since network use of IETF protocols is at least as important as Internet, yes it is very much IETF business if it wants to remain relevant.
As for what the IPv4 consortium would do, I wrote out a draft list:
* Determine IPR policy.* Chose venues for upcoming meetings.* Form advisory committees.* Hold elections to advisory committees.* Set a schedule of membership fees.
And that is just for starters.
- Stewart
Like running IPv4 on the internal network and only translating to IPv6 at the interface? That is exactly what I would expect such a body to develop. And the reason companies not represented in IETF would be more than happy to pay to join such a consortium is that gifting $50K/year to develop standards to keep their legacy systems running would be a lot cheaper than paying network equipment vendors millions to upgrade all the gear in their company.