Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14-Aug-21 06:49, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
...
>> a cost that is better invested in accelerating the migration to IPv6.
> 
> IETF could deny the community a forum in which to form a consensus
> about how IPv4 can usefully evolve.  

"The IAB expects that the IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in new or extended protocols. Future IETF protocol work will then optimize for and depend on IPv6." [https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/] So any IETF effort
on "evolving" IPv4 is really not on the radar. Patching it up operationally is
in scope, of course. That's what you seem to be proposing.

> But it can't force everyone to
> spend an equivalent amount of energy on doing one particular other
> thing, like "accelerating the migration to IPv6".  As we discussed in
> our message responding to Brian Carpenter and Andrew Sullivan, that is a
> false dilemma. 

Not really; the total effort available to get documents through the IETF
process is a finite resource. (Not the effort to create -00 drafts, which
appears to be an infinite resource, but the process that follows, which is
already far too slow because the pipeline is full. Actual the Suez Canal
is a better analogy, because each step in the process works like a basin
and a lock, with finite throughput.)

> Neglecting or abandoning IPv4 isn't an IPv6 transition
> strategy.

As I've been saying for 15+ years, we don't have a transistion strategy,
we have a co-existence strategy. That's indeed orthogonal to a marginal
extra supply of IPv4 addresses.

     Brian