Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression (IPng)

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Fri, 05 February 2010 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFC83A686A for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:31:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5glpOJ1iXkj for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from midgard.seastrom.com (midgard.seastrom.com [IPv6:2610:178:1:1:203:47ff:fefd:df3e]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3AD3A67A6 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from racvrpr.dsl.onthenet.net ([203.144.6.58] helo=[192.168.2.12]) by midgard.seastrom.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (authenticated id=box0219) id 1NdXf3-000PN6-9n for ietf-outcomes@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:32:30 -0500
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--657264010
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 09:32:24 +1000
Message-Id: <E1D6463C-74FA-45F4-929B-DEC71F086CC2@istaff.org>
To: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] First Impression (IPng)
X-BeenThere: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <ietf-outcomes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-outcomes>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:31:40 -0000

From: Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu>
> 
> I agree with that statement, though how to move IPv6 deployment forward seems to me belong to discussions elsewhere. I feel that a potentially helpful discussion on this list could be a retrospective view on the whole IPv6 development process -- why didn't IPv6 get rolled out once it's done, as expected? Personally I've thought about that question. 

My belief system on this matter is:

- We defined IPng to solve the one problem of IPv4 address 
   depletion, effectively giving IPng no new capabilities or 
   features over IPv4 to encourage deployment  (RFC 1669)

- Since the problem space for IPng is one that hasn't occurred
   yet, any judgement on success or failure of the protocol 
   process is premature.

- Once we see whether IPng transition is successful, I am sure
   that there will be abundant "lessons learned" to be considered.

/John