Re: Deployment Cases
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 03 January 2008 19:42 UTC
Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAVxY-000607-Hu; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:42:32 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAVxX-0005uA-2E for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:42:31 -0500
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAVxW-0005sa-IH for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:42:31 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so4320253rvb.49 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:42:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8mkpPU+v/TEa9fbLIB2rU5EVsPbm4GKOyXrNapvwJ3M=; b=J2Xw+KjBXkLYOZNF84XRIgRulZZq3HZ3CGw8LfeK9CEpfBZFmRaFrJZWDtHrh0f2+06/Zqm4bc6so3mBiD01iDyDbYCDpreZj2WmwfKVHNn44wJuOZrYxkrhgY68LRLFGi8pm787LZu4fpAC4+61B5LE7QZI9v7ZyrjVxghspmM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dexATO5r8We7PvjL7WWJGMdI8ZrtnHE0rsQ/AFNxnGmj9ADSu9Ik7E4genJIe65brk6Dle2xiUvUvqwS95TV4oK7eWF1FYiCjJz7lmKA35sCyuBBvNO9qECYAzM5rwqeZe14Lx5uhp9bBMXuxaVNbGf7XaMBsgqQ5fqIyt7CUv8=
Received: by 10.141.195.18 with SMTP id x18mr7872468rvp.171.1199389349886; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.173.168.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f13sm25927538rvb.10.2008.01.03.11.42.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <477D3A98.5030206@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:42:16 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
References: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615570462E8@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><066001c84892$a33f7850$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com><4774103E.4000407@dcrocker.net><AFE0AC8DCDE68842B94E8EC69D5F21D635E6CD4501@NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com><47744661.3060808@bbiw.net><47749A8B.1080502@sopac.org><9BE39E8B-7B1F-4243-985C-025A24D105EB@muada.com><47794C95.7050005@dcrocker.net><1474DFBA-8B77-46B8-AABA-373689555331@cs.columbia.edu><47795548.7000303@bbiw.net><66006D08-6F13-4BDF-8960-3D747F44FB0E@cs.columbia.edu><477970FE.8090302@sopac.org><01MPJP2QLGWE00BDC1@mauve.mrochek.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C31661557084FC2@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001AB742C@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <477C2B52.8040408@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001AB753F@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <477CBC70.6080402@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C31661557084FCB@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C31661557084FCB@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deployment Cases
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On 2008-01-04 05:30, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Yes, as you point out the generic answer to the problem is NAT-PT which was recently squashed after a cabal got together. That's a bizarre statement. Which of the technical arguments in RFC 4966 are you referring to as being products of a cabal? Did you raise your objections to those arguments during the IETF Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (issued 2007-03-08)? > My point here is that the thinking on the transition in the IETF to date has all been of the form 'well everyone is going to have to become like us, only they can't possibly expect to so its a bit of a problem but not our problem'. Have you been contributing to ngtrans and v6ops over the last ten years to correct this wrong way of thinking? > > I received a lot of criticism when I first proposed that the IETF embrace NAT as a transition tool rather than deprecate it. The idea that we should actively encourage the NAT-ing of IPv4 was considered as unacceptable as Brian and others now find my proposals for changing the way that the IETF operates and the considerations it takes into account. That comparison is a category mistake. And given that NAT-PT was defined as a co-existence technique in February 2000 (RFC 2766), I'm not sure I see your point exactly. > I don't see much dispute on that point today. Pretty much everyone seems to now accept that we are going to run out of IPv4 addresses before IPv6 deployment is complete and that some form of address sharing is therefore inevitable. What we have failled to do so far is to act on that. Well, the original plan was that IPv6 would deploy before sharing of IPv4 addresses started. That didn't happen and of course it's unfortunate. It's true that those of us who were aghast at the negative consequences of address sharing did nothing to make it work better, and wrote about the negative consequences. I make no apology for my part in that. Given today's reality, some of the aghast are thinking actively about how to define a method that isn't broken in the ways described by RFC 4966. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Deployment Cases Rémi Després
- Re: Deployment Cases Marc Manthey
- Re: Deployment Cases Rémi Després
- Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Deployment Cases Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Deployment Cases Franck Martin
- Re: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Deployment Cases Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Deployment Cases Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- RE: Deployment Cases Christian Huitema
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Franck Martin
- Re: Deployment Cases TS Glassey
- Re: Deployment Cases Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Deployment Cases Franck Martin
- Re: Deployment Cases Ned Freed
- Re: Deployment Cases Julian Reschke
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Dave Crocker
- Re: Deployment Cases Tony Finch
- RE: Deployment Cases Ping Pan
- Re: Deployment Cases Franck Martin
- RE: Deployment Cases Ping Pan
- Re: Deployment Cases Franck Martin
- RE: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Deployment Cases Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: Deployment Cases Tony Finch
- Re: Deployment Cases Joel Jaeggli
- RE: Deployment Cases Ping Pan
- RE: Deployment Cases michael.dillon
- Re: Deployment Cases Jeroen Massar
- Re: Deployment Cases Tony Hansen
- Re: Deployment Cases Stewart Bryant
- RE: Deployment Cases michael.dillon
- Re: Deployment Cases Jeroen Massar
- RE: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Deployment Cases Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Deployment Cases Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Deployment Cases Lars Eggert
- Re: Deployment Cases Marshall Eubanks
- RE: Deployment Cases Hallam-Baker, Phillip