[LAC-TF] Sesion en IETF 95 (ERA: Re: implicaciones de declarar IPv4 historico)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu Apr 7 14:51:09 BRT 2016
I’m not saying I agree with that, if you read the full thread, I stated that what wonders me is what Geoff said in the mike, about the need to avoid “third” parties to sort out problems as it happened with NAT. What I’m saying is that in my understanding “historic" means that.
We may need a “middle” way.
However: Do you think anyone will invest in sorting out new problems discovered in analogue TV, once digital TV is being deployed ?
In general I don’t like “mandating” things, but I really think we missed the opportunity for many governments to PROTECT customers, which is one of his duties, not having mandated ahead for several years, before IPv4 addresses were exhausted, the support of IPv6 and avoiding importing non-IPv6 capable devices, as they did with analogue TV.
De: LACTF <lactf-bounces at lacnic.net> en nombre de Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
Responder a: <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
Fecha: jueves, 7 de abril de 2016, 13:47
Para: <lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org>
Asunto: Re: [LAC-TF] Sesion en IETF 95 (ERA: Re: implicaciones de declarar IPv4 historico)
>On 04/06/2016 08:21 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> 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.
>So essentially you're arguing that if a bug (e.g. with security
>implications) were to be discovered for the protocol that makes the
>Internet runs, we should leave the hole in?
>That's quite a statement. And I'm curious of what the parties possibly
>affected might think of us if we were to take that decision...
>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
>Cancelar suscripcion: lactf-unsubscribe at lacnic.net
More information about the LACTF