Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3321A0105; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I5-x9TQ_B1jO; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FB621A001B; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 10so3248365lbg.15 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eV7dmLxDw0zR1r+OJoCFxRrWDwBl2WdFkTgUdE+7knU=; b=ZhZ/GEE4XmkWa0SvbupPgigHrySiIjeXHVq7mmLVrZim+dhCDhNJyB+7UhdUimHDXG Ucjadf2WkgA2TJemCcUCqYn7QmKOAzay8jm39ycsMW5Ailn79B5JMvLpkVUWLoRnBvf0 XPo/9mdj+gYwq98GQ1r8Ee3M1lXILIvxY7NXiwo/AP0u3ETCh0d+TSo5/Sr14AMvf+22 5PmraiQB0K1orhfX0paNE41KAJhlbUvll18y497nW9rc/j9e5f4H6LuGDyO9NYAsEtjT eMfY31fURwi+IsDwFZGB5VLp3Tq9pmWQO4tdu4Y+yMU4vI9Ds6DFf+x+F3O39hO6wo6f 2ahA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id t5mr6585379lbg.45.1418253527794; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:18:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:18:45 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: it_uBJzKk-YJv-Zyhv5DTfIylJs
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b04ab9ca130509e4e11c
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>, Bob Hinden <>, IESG <>, Dave Crocker <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:18:51 -0000

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <> wrote:
> > My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about
> IPv4
> > anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.
> This is why I was so surprised by the controversy.   Sigh

Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best
way to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better'
and to sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.

So we had the campaign against NAT, even though it was obviously benefiting
people economically. With 80 nodes on my internal net, I would be paying
several thousand dollars a year to have static IPs for each (not to mention
depriving others of Internet access). In fact my ISP now requires me to run

In hindsight 32 bits was exactly the wrong size. If IPv4 had been 16 bits
we would have run out of address space long, long ago when the cost of
transition was not so prohibitive - there would only be 65K nodes to

The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old
strategy. Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the
same so that the transition cost is minimal.