[LAC-TF] Sesion en IETF 95 (ERA: Re: implicaciones de declarar IPv4 historico)

[Arturo Servin]

Lee, Jordi

If ATM, Apple Talk and Novel IPX were IETF standards, could we declare them
historic. Yes, because no one is using anymore.

Can we do the same with IPv4, no, because 90% of the Internet is using it.

When could we declare IPv4 as historic? As Geoff mentioned, when we reach
99% of IPv6 use (probably he said something different but he point was when
IPv4 is barely used in the Internet)

We have spend 15 years trying to push IPv6, not just the IETF but many in
the Internet community, the result we all know.

So, do we honestly think that an RFC document would declaring IPv4 as
historic would convince many networks operators to deploy IPv6 when even
the IPv4 exhaustion didn't?

I would ask, what is the goal of the document?

If it is to declare a protocol as historic because it is not longer used
enough and we should not do more work, then I think is not time yet.

If it is to make awareness that we need to deploy more IPv6 and stop using
IPv4, the impact would be minimal compared to the complications that it
would create.

As discussed in other places (sunset, the session, etc.) I would found more
value in a document setting the path to make IPv4 historic.

Regards
as


On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 at 00:21 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
>
> I think we need to avoid confusing people.
>
> Deprecating IPv4 doesn’t means that it can’t be used anymore. It means
> that we want to make sure people start thinking in IPv6, using it as much
> as possible and using IPv4 as less as possible.
>
> It also means that new features will not be developed for IPv4 and
> possibly bugs at the protocol level (if discovered) will not be sorted out.
>
> Nobody will disconnect you from IPv4 now, but sooner or later it may
> happen.
>
> Is like analogue and digital TV, of course, at the end, you will get
> disconnected from analogue TV, but you will be able to have devices that
> still get you working on Internet, such as the CPE performing some
> transition (464XLAT, for example). This is normal life cycle for everything
> in the world !
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: LACTF <lactf-bounces at lacnic.net> en nombre de Fernando Gont <
> fgont at si6networks.com>
> Responder a: <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
> Fecha: miércoles, 6 de abril de 2016, 20:08
> Para: <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
> Asunto: Re: [LAC-TF] Sesion en IETF 95 (ERA: Re: implicaciones de declarar
> IPv4 historico)
>
> >Lee,
> >
> >On 04/06/2016 07:10 PM, Howard, Lee wrote:
> >> Cómo no es prime-time?
> >>
> >> What is missing? This draft document would only have affected IETF
> >> process, but if there are gaps the IETF needs to cover first, what still
> >> needs to be done?
> >
> >With respect to deprecating IPv4, I'd say that IPv6 and IPv4 are really
> >two different protocols -- not really versions that could e.g. be
> >interoperable (i.e., v6 being backwards compatible). So in that sense
> >I'm not sure to what extent it can be argued that IPv6 is a new version
> >of IPv4 (yes, both are called IP, but that's it).
> >
> >Nowadays, you cannot really prefer one protocol over the other, for the
> >simple reason that IPv6 is not as widespread as one would like it to be.
> >There are lots of deployed devices that simply do not support it.
> >In that respect, declaring IPv6 historic is in a sense, saying that the
> >Internet is running on an historic protocol, or pretending that you can
> >switch to that protocol, when in many cases, you simply can't
> >
> >Regarding IPv6 being prime-time, there are issues when it comes to
> >implementations. Both in terms of host/uter implementations, and other
> >devices such as firewalls e.g., see:
> ><
> http://www.ipv6hackers.org/meetings/ipv6-hackers-1/zack-ipv6hackers1-firewall-security-assessment-and-benchmarking.pdf
> >.
> >(videos and stuff available at: <http://www.ipv6hackers.org>). (think
> >about NIDS etc support for IPv6 etc., too).
> >
> >The above does not mean that you cannot deploy today. But rather that we
> >really still rely on IPv4, there are devices and boxes that will
> >probably continue to do ipv4-only for the rest of their lifetime, and
> >there scenarios for which if you really wanted to do 6, you'd have a
> >hard time.
> >
> >P.S.: Thanks for joining this list. That's appreciated!
> >--
> >Fernando Gont
> >SI6 Networks
> >e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
> >PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >LACTF mailing list
> >LACTF at lacnic.net
> >https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
> >Cancelar suscripcion: lactf-unsubscribe at lacnic.net
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACTF mailing list
> LACTF at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lactf
> Cancelar suscripcion: lactf-unsubscribe at lacnic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/attachments/20160407/5471740a/attachment.html>