Re: [sunset4] s'wonderful or not, Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

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

 



In article <9637bbf6-82a2-c94d-0b3d-238501e7679a@xxxxxxxxx> you write:
>I am not at all clear on the upside.
>
>We should make declarations about IPv6, but remain silent on IPv4.

The bit about not adding anything to IPv4 unless we also add it to
IPv6 is OK, but I also can't find much merit in the rest of the
document.

We have been telling people that IPv6 is wonderful for over 20 years,
and they're still using v4.  It would be a lot more effective to make
v6 actually wonderful, than to try to browbeat people into abandoning
their working v4 systems.

For an example how how we might improve v6 wonderfulness, see Geoff
Huston's recent blog post on how badly v6 fragmentation works with
large DNS responses like you get with DNSSEC:

https://blog.apnic.net/2017/08/22/dealing-ipv6-fragmentation-dns/

R's,
John




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