IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 17 November 2010 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0703A69A7; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hkt70l3c33q5; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E39A3A698F; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 566776BE5DE; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:45:58 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6
Message-Id: <20101117194558.566776BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:45:58 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:45:18 -0000

    > From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>

    > is my understanding that IETF consensus is to have the industry
    > transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

That's certainly the formal IETF _position_ - whether it's the _consensus_ of
the IETF participants is another matter.

Ever since the original IPv6 decision, over 16 years ago (the Toronto IETF -
July, 1994), there has been a very considerable group of people who
disagreed. Whether or not it was large enough to be considered 'rough
consensus' is, I suspect, in the eye of the beholder.


And of course the position of the users of the network is yet another
question entirely.

So far, in that 16-year period (we're shortly going to have IETF participants
who _weren't even born yet_ when the IETF 'picked' IPv6), they have shown
little inclination to consume the dog-food.

Will the next couple of years see much change there? We'll see.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email