IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15321331E7; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 UBaBlACStOVC; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F91E13301B; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id p187so2568961oif.4; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QZps5lyIFBInj1NURPVcJPrJebNhBHtiLQxmW4fCYiM=; b=H5806Bjt3Ilb/sAeI/7hmtEHcbdbL8oF7QvxUjFsBTsFaV1K1AfkWt0ef6D8pbY2jf RucAY+R4UNj1MwmdfkVUOtwgLMEmXi5AutRNqdlMVTAPnf1IDpE4WJOw0E8WyWtsAoKP 7jIktkByFbN3KXBhcztFREuaX9dxG120lLi2WzE1SvG7hgdcbrqpc3NzBjrQeSAeKjAA cYpUXet4l491CITVAVX+tIwIpkFPgQWxgCvCwkETqX69hLJopKJ8tqe5OIcmydp2Bgq9 Kn4hzvnlg70mJ+SaLCM6N22+5ExBw9baxk94T8FSbllFuJSniC5KwKML8zfF9L/lbqTm k0QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QZps5lyIFBInj1NURPVcJPrJebNhBHtiLQxmW4fCYiM=; b=Ru10VslFCQYK296vMTs/1tuTVnvTybMxUfs9475+AycCJGT4h//KPdm8Y16TaJo97v 1wqo3O2MewNVVE5ODP5MdVn/XhHeg5dvNw2Ey0KoAqsCpRqYk+pIw+Ck3Kkmohy45Cyx pgc/rLE/f64gV2aSsE+bevkg20zt/OCtRy9UhPJgzifaQqM6bdHAtZzuhDESqhvms2OA pEmciqCL5za66hfjNY2LeSraZTUwmiaUChUDdkSvDVaxf4hXJgKbJIAnVIJdPR9q8/Jw beNNc3JQJ+KNaJjkpWXKe2ZqvsvzS+amePuCymku7+63kYU5qGf9Cu2fdFz/GQ8EbjtM 6T3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWQE/A6fZrb9lcYCbUDrB8cZGD+6foKAnMvEuJL/4Mheoi4v+0Z NuMhx0KqcvkNtv7wOWMA7fBpeH9IQTWvBVIwgUQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBpZrUwvjeZwOEHjKd1HbI0rHmjC/y0uHQvoi56cWh4haQAE7BvtyqC9iQfEe7Vx+Uco7y3vTnoqYFpsQ4umtA=
X-Received: by 10.202.75.20 with SMTP id y20mr494803oia.432.1506609295752; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.157.95.12 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150660518277.13796.5801483741214576151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150660518277.13796.5801483741214576151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:34:55 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7FpqJyRJ4Y3sfwiW7_UMZOPt2ng
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwicKPpZ8+0AbrDx5+twqHWH=rTXTbrVQhPS=7VA-0a=qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, sunset4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf@ietf.org, sunset4@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1702ae38410055a40cfc7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/xMuKxLvnj9g4wy-JIGnw_TJKRlg>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sunset4/>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:34:58 -0000

I remain opposed for the reason I gave last time this was proposed: The
IETF should retain control of IPv4 and any statement to the effect that the
IETF will no longer work on IPv4 will inevitably lead to formation of an
IPv4 legacy standards group in competition with IETF.

Like it or not, FORTRAN and COBOL are still in common use a full 40 years
after they were functionally obsolete. I see no reason to believe that
anyone will need more than 32 bits of addressing for their home network.
There being no compelling reason for my coffee pot to be able to talk to
the entire Internet, I have a compelling reason to prevent it doing so.

Rather than sunset IPv4, I would sunset IPv4 as an Internet protocol and
relegate it to use as a network protocol only.

As a network protocol, IPv4 remains far superior to many other protocols
that the IETF continues to support and should begin supporting. I do not
believe in a model where every device connects directly to the Internet.
There is a proper role for the local loop and RS485, SPI, IC2 etc. devices
in IoT and there is a role for IPv4.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email