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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2015 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E189F1A1BAA; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sTaP5OBiW191; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFD191A1BB8; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so103300198igb.0; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=C/KNfGukBDUeeDnpg7T5MBjNvLEPiZU+4XEUvn7LVSU=; b=tHU6bOHeUJ7CiV97xdfPWqkqW/JUmoLNEl9CVAcZapT0rt5zxiYb3tVNQ5ER9r2vJH DJT1UCdPlNk9DHyvPkfmMNnHhy4HfOCjxbiqlK3BiXoY236DAlM0QMotKLBrMNRoA6ww bKwkaznuQ3VBRZRioCfhMcB7sl7Z0krgqJxA8SP7Xy+qVjZ26YXNZdlQrYgmvSYIL95K 8RMwgka6gYcxWdQIf4rPOsrxEpwsiSvSTVqQCBybfoDGLfs33hrQ6bAj0BtVfbo2VRf9 KF0yhYA1ku/tZswy856KApgseYwACJ3ICTFQO/HSfGG5yzNntGjGYP5/GfmPAAz2S2at 5tTQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.64.147 with SMTP id o19mr22094961igs.15.1439344052086; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.143 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSmwogXb+OgGoPqSsvRL==h7YL763+sjWUY8_aqKkmTuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D1EF60F2.643E2%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGSmwogXb+OgGoPqSsvRL==h7YL763+sjWUY8_aqKkmTuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:46:59 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yLVh4AgmKKLK2bRF0x_-+nWAe3f__W9mJCKCRd+-MadA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/TdaM-ARIQ0SKJus5gtiESYQBbLs>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v6ops] New features in Legacy IPv4 (was Re: protocols without need for ALG ?)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:47:34 -0000

On 11 August 2015 at 22:52, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, George, Wes <wesley.george@twcable.com>; wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Ca By
>> <cb.list6@gmail.com>;
>> Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:37 AM
>>
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015, Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>>

<snip>

>>
>> 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 I'd
>> like to think that  the current language strongly discourages it.
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-support-03
>>
>> 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.

"Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough ?"

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg00295.html


Regards,
Mark.