Re: [Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

If the consensus is that we should be dropping the sentence completely in
the next versions and not specify any RIFT router requirements, I think
that's perfectly reasonable as well.

--- tony

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:39 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On July 18, 2019 at 3:50:34 PM, Tony Przygienda ([e-mail])
> wrote:
>
> [Speaking as a WG member.]
>
> Aha ok, what you say is reasonable. I was steered here originally by the
> fact the even cheapest stuff today
> <http://airmail.calendar/2019-07-18%2012:00:00%20GMT-3> does v4 and if we
> have v6 support on the fabric v4 forwarding over v6 nexthops is possible at
> basically zero config cost and you have a great v4 to v6 migration story.
> but with the angle you propose I see that writing "SHOULD support v4" would
> be better assuming silicon will become v6 only over years and v4 will
> vanish.
>
> We can't write of course "MUST support v6" since that makes the stuff
> undeployable in foreseable future albeit we all wish the world would have
> moved on for last 20 years :-}
>
> Other opinions?
>
> I would go all the way and not make specific support Normative.  Even a
> “SHOULD support IPv4” could raise a lot of questions.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Alvaro.
>
>