IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 045C01A8A17; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:05:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KyHD4GvQPZka; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDB6E1A8A08; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so32005800wiv.17 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:04:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=xQ8DE/PFGz6ufxUXsqymRXVtAc3HuY8toEp6uHV8ZEo=; b=NoBgXXGhM7KknSn/arizLkjKBLwJFg3laM6ErECgIhEkhHi5mFgkHV7CEjScMUVM1F UZclQpUTUAT5Kfnf0CHmgrLrgj+BlgHvXOv7FWKVLxg/eZrpBk0RV6ERjVpOHvcLnx4m IxcyDOQEn63qUCopUwfLf9kfwb7+o6v5yRqGH0kJZOIzHjhqFFK7RtElFEDh1aOtJWUT TZpW8KwWzi0PCFn/i++f01Qm5pvOsmpcm/9pRgVIv/GnUJcKeK3SJf7i+rR4BTW+hWyu 7K6pVu58L4L/itxZuNNoCuPyLUKmpoeJuA/kF9WROUBAUMpvRzCw4nWYdf/mXwuwObH2 AawQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.83.8 with SMTP id m8mr9152987wjy.58.1417626270705; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:04:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:400:ac2:d473:bd17:214b:ae17? ([2601:9:400:ac2:d473:bd17:214b:ae17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pu3sm37044164wjc.14.2014.12.03.09.04.28 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8414BC84-7E9E-4B16-9B33-1E1598FCFDCA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:04:25 -0800
Message-Id: <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uvncUCYWAIkvPsDkOFNG_ovyPNU
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IESG <iesg@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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:05:14 -0000

Hi,

I do not support this action.  The words in the abstract in RFC6346:

   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.

are not accurate.  Noting one of many statistics that IPv6 use is growing, Google is reporting that 5% of their access traffic is from IPv6:

   http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

We have effectively gotten to the point of depletion of IPV4 addresses, and the world has not come to an end.  I don't see any need to reclassify this RFC as a standard and think doing so would cause confusion in the community and be harmful to the Internet.

Bob


On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:38 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
> 
> - RFC6346 from Experimental to Proposed Standard
>    (The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage)
> 
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The affected document can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6346/
> 
> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-address-plus-port-to-proposed/ballot/
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email