Re: [sunset4] Closing Sunset4

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Terry Manderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > That is a fair request.

    > I’m not sure the MIF example applies completely as the situations were
    > different, however I’ll take on board the desire for AD guidance when
    > it comes to work.

    > I appreciate the desire to have a ‘home’ for discussions. How about
    > this. I’ll close the WG, but leave the sunset4 mailing list open at
    > least until March next year. I’m sure that the volume of discussion up

I'm okay with this.
My impression is that sunset4 tried hard, but failed to get consensus.
That's not a failure to get work done --- not getting consensus usually
takes longer than a trivial consensus.

My take is that sunset4 was sligthly premature; operators aren't ready do to
this.  Yes, there are **now** data centers where IPv4 is going away, but
those DC also are almost always closed proprietary environments (even if the
components are open source, I can't buy a cabinet in that space, and they
don't run off-the-shelf OS builds).

I think that we wanted to be premature, such that we could get OS vendors
to test having no IPv4 *now*, and not discover things are broken ten years
later when the equipement can't be replaced.  We actually spured a few OS
vendors (FreeBSD, Linux, others) to try the test... many discovered
"127.0.0.1" hard code in many places.

In the end, the problem is that funded OS vendors at the IETF has been
"reduced" to Apple and Google, neither of which is in the desktop market
it seems... While MS is clearly still here, funded Linux OS/networking people
are not at IETF (Wouters excepted!).

So sunset4 did as much work as it could without broad OS vendor consensus.
I believe that the situation will change once more operators begin to
attempt to really turn off IPv4 in a non-3G space.

Please keep the list alive.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-