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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 A13191A0004 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:03:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 TWwwQ-4eBpMg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [198.180.150.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 149291A004B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1Xwbgg-00048I-Cp; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:03:38 +0000
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 04:03:36 +0900
Message-ID: <m2zjb39r07.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <31A28A6F-70EB-4333-8FA0-7E71A45F2356@nominum.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <87498266-8A59-40F8-B987-D51D9828BB33@nominum.com> <BD47A3B6-64D1-4FBC-8353-4970F808F092@surrey.ac.uk> <31A28A6F-70EB-4333-8FA0-7E71A45F2356@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8fskZG6ufrbu7fHOqtlDi95qhU8
Cc: IETF Disgust <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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:03:42 -0000

> I actually agree with Bob that the abstract to 6346 says something
> that's not true

this is the paragraph bob quoted

   We are facing the exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free IP address pool.
   Unfortunately, IPv6 is not yet deployed widely enough to fully
   replace IPv4, and it is unrealistic to expect that this is going to
   change before the depletion of IPv4 addresses.  Letting hosts
   seamlessly communicate in an IPv4 world without assigning a unique
   globally routable IPv4 address to each of them is a challenging
   problem.

please point out what is not true about that paragraph.  other than the
tense, of course; the iana pool ran out; as have apnic, ripe, and soon
arin.

the first step in solving a problem is admitting we have it.

randy