IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stability with IPv6

RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 13 March 2014 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D361A09CE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
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 u-IVaa3wEsl2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA6D1A09DA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id j15so1276787qaq.30 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BwwgbKTVfl4NyEEFYcIsl8nB2YSjp3lIZ9kiBOkTnHc=; b=ZMV3j3CttzvsGuWgD3Nmr/FSIC2iIOrEBZBb5QbiSOKqBmHv0eVI/d+1M/c1V08C0T h0uGICyc6gc0DFIUIh2cGPyoBpi4vrRci+Ryclpvs7Sygvkl7g6iQLI6Ef4+wv23GxNE SsReIDTxnTnoE3vvIzeDyKI+V9dkv7bIR9vZha1WJqvSyP7gtS3CCbpNyWxI++ZyDd1B vveDDTSwuBo7tuK1hGLxVqpzGvxPmVUh7qV8IjJbwLzRMyCduf+82sgoMnDjj3t5V/j2 57/b/DEsff88TrSeLAxkRBvC4liVAxbAZcPR2TpQt+05x6NvbyTLqMIJ9Lq/K/0aOsvi lsDA==
X-Received: by 10.140.83.47 with SMTP id i44mr3513884qgd.100.1394728731554; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.20.15] (pool-173-79-6-58.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.6.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm3943799qgd.17.2014.03.13.09.38.51 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Subject: Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stability with IPv6
From: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTHcsZ1Ob8m_6=mvFS_9byPMYd82xX0tRYc4+FrfaqjuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:38:58 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <59FEEE66-AF0E-4BD8-84C0-841BE60BBC05@gmail.com>
References: <E2C06D73-99FF-42B5-A3BE-337C307BCB0E@gmail.com> <87F8422E-9BF2-4269-A3A4-54AB1C0B257B@cisco.com> <CAD6AjGTHcsZ1Ob8m_6=mvFS_9byPMYd82xX0tRYc4+FrfaqjuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WvZy0jX5rzXy3ThFi-AQBtfBUuc
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:39:00 -0000

On Mar 13, 2014 9:20 AM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> With respect, if the changes you mentioned are considered fundamental
> changes to IPv6, the IETF has spent the past 25 years changing IPv4.

We disagree that we've been changing IPv4 in similar ways 
oat a similar age.  Yes, IPv4 did change significantly
between the infamous Flag-day conversion from NCP and the
early 90s widespread adoption of CIDR.  However, major IPv4 changes,
such as CIDR, happened well prior to its 20th Anniversary.  

By contrast, major changes ARE being proposed for IPv6 
well AFTER its 20th Anniversary -- and not because the
existing IPv6 doesn't work well (which it does), but instead 
for the reasons that Lorenzo's reply to my note outlined.

On 13  Mar 2014, at 12:29 , Cb B wrote:
>> +1 for Fred

Please see Lorenzo's response to my note, which I think was
more eloquent than mine (I fully agree with Lorenzo's note).

Yours,

Ran

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email