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

Arturo Servin arturo.servin at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 10:20:26 BRT 2016


<I trim some of the text for the relevant bit>

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 at 11:57 Howard, Lee <lee.howard at twcable.com> wrote:

> From: LACTF <lactf-bounces at lacnic.net> on behalf of Arturo Servin <
> arturo.servin at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org" <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
> Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:45 AM
> To: "lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org" <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
> Subject: Re: [LAC-TF] Sesion en IETF 95 (ERA: Re: implicaciones de
> declarar IPv4 historico)
> I would ask, what is the goal of the document?
> I tried to say in the document, but I understand I didn’t say it well. The
> goal is for the IETF to stop working on IPv4.  There are no more
> enhancements to be had in IPv4. Our time and energy would be better spent
> optimizing IPv6 than extending IPv4.

Then sadly we need to still work on IPv4. We still need transition
technologies, we need to patch IPv4 for any future vulnerabilities, etc.
until the point that is irrelevant to work on IPv4 more. Today is not.

> 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.
> Yes, I heard that. What path do you think we should set?

I would said that for now and until we reach 50% of IPv6 let's watch.

> Thank you,
> Lee
> Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/attachments/20160407/1872162b/attachment.html>

More information about the LACTF mailing list