IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Mon, 15 December 2014 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BC61A86EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 6TJh-00wgEU7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F26D1A86EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 232FB1FD9; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:38:55 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20141215173855.GB2004@shrubbery.net>
References: <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADC+-gR+sFUELOrdfVj5e3hW-KZoftotbhvEwF6aotZvq5wOkw@mail.gmail.com> <1DF3E368-D915-458C-8009-C508735D3C88@nominum.com> <5488FEE0.2030400@gmail.com> <84E9B4C0-A2E2-41BF-955A-1B125BBE63B1@nominum.com> <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com> <20141211034501.1776A25434AE@rock.dv.isc.org> <20141212051204.GG39631@shrubbery.net> <548B42B5.50509@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <548B42B5.50509@gmail.com>
X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc
X-note: live free, or die!
X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring.
X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle
X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4SdINMfoZkIifCOBOftyr9VTXJk
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:38:56 -0000

Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 08:32:05AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter:
> On 12/12/2014 18:12, heasley wrote:
> ...
> > I don't know anyone enchanted by v6.
> 
> Strange choice of word. I'm not in the least enchanted by IPv4
> or by NAT44 either. I just know as a matter of fact that the
> IPv4nternet ran out of addresses a while back and we have no
> alternative but to fix it using IPv6. All the rest is details,
> important details of course, but details.

The point is that expanded address space is the only reason folks are
driven to v6.  The other protocol changes are not received as improvements
and IMO have only served to further hinder adoption.  These could have
been omitted and by doing so, i argue that, adoption would be (have been)
swifter.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email