Re: [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)

"Howard, Lee" <> Wed, 12 August 2015 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C001B2DB3; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.225
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibreITEuyTHY; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF161A89A9; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,661,1432612800"; d="scan'208";a="347145676"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 12 Aug 2015 09:21:22 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:25:22 -0400
From: "Howard, Lee" <>
To: Mark Smith <>, Ca By <>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:25:21 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)
Thread-Index: AdDVAlb9pnr/cKSoRDeZvs3nCaoNFA==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:25:26 -0000

>>> Is it time to resurrect this draft and push it forward? It doesn't
>>> explicitly prohibit work of the type proposed in the above drafts, but
>>> like to think that  the current language strongly discourages it.
>>> Wes George
>> Yes.  We clearly see that folks need the message to be unambiguous
>Deprecating IPv4 would do the trick. Doesn't mean you can't use it,
>doesn't mean it can't continue to be fixed, just means that it has
>become the legacy Internet protocol.

I searched in vain for an IETF definition of ³Deprecated,² although I did
find some examples.
I found a definition of ³Historic² (sort of) in rfc2026 and an old
clarifying draft draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-03.
All of those words seem to suggest that the deprecated/historic/obsolete
protocol could still be used, but to be careful with it. I¹d call it a
SHOULD NOT, meaning don¹t unless you have a really good reason.
I would be delighted if somebody has pointers to better definitions.

This work would need to happen in 6man or intarea WG, I think. I therefore
offer no opinion here.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.