Re: [sunset4] [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09.txt

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 8/17/17, 4:58 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of STARK, BARBARA H"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>> >> The question I would ask is whether on-demand IPv4 makes sense.
>> > 
>> >I think "on-demand IPv4" would be rather easy with PPPoE. Many (telco)
>> >ISPs are still using PPPoE, and there's still a lot of equipment and
>> >routers that support it.
>> 
>> That’s exactly how it reads in the gapanalysis draft: it makes sense
>>for PPPoE.
>> 
>> However, I will argue to both working groups that we should find an
>>operator
>> who thinks this is a good idea. I hope we can get them to write it up.
>>If there
>> is no such operator, we should remove the section (or at most, footnote
>>it as
>> an idea somebody once thought of).
>
>On-demand IPv4 is unrealistic in today's world. To be useful, it requires
>a majority of customers have no chatty-to-the-Internet IPv4 apps on their
>home network. That's many years away, given continuing sales of IPv4-only
>"Smart" TVs and Blu-ray players.
>
>As for documenting how to do PPPoE on demand, I consider that
>unnecessary. It's already known how to do that. The code, equipment, and
>operational expertise already exists -- especially among ISPs with a
>history of using PPPoE. BBF even has RG requirements documented for it,
>and network element and architecture requirements. I see no need to
>create additional documentation in IETF. IETF has never been a good place
>to document anything substantive related to PPPoE (PPPoE is not an IETF
>standard; it was published as an "independent submission" informational
>RFC because no IETF WG would touch it).
>
>I don't care strongly whether or not on-demand IPv4 is removed from the
>gapanalysis draft (which I think is what Lee suggested). But I do find it
>odd that it should be removed just because it would only be useful during
>the actual sunset of IPv4 (and not in near-term deployments).


I agree that the scope of sunset4-gapanalysis includes the long term.

If IPv4-on-demand (or specifically the PPPoE version) were completely out
of the question of ever being used, I would continue advocating for the
section to be removed. But I think you’re saying that it will be used, but
that the people most likely to use it don’t know it yet. In that case,
let’s leave it in.

Lee