Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 15, 2014, at 1:02 PM, George, Wes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> From: Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 12:46 PM
> To: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
> 
> 
> In reality, there’s not going to be any such thing as a v6-only CPE router implementation for many years to come, so this argument is rather specious to begin with. However, in that distant future, the above could be supported with a pretty small code-base.
> 
> WG] yeah… have you seen how long it takes IETF work to progress from draft to actual deployed implementation? Especially if you’re factoring in the average half-life of a consumer CPE router? That’s why we are starting now.  It’s not a specious argument, just very forward looking.
> 
>> And the message from Simon that I was referring to was the one that discussed the draft that was proposed in sunset4 for solving this problem using DHCPv4, which was _not adopted by the working group_.   Draft adoption is part of the working group process; the fact that the working group decided to merge the DHCPv4 draft into this one, and not the other way around, is precisely what it means for a working group to have consensus to push this solution and not the other one.
> I’m happy for the working group, but there is very little operator participation in the sunset4 working group at this time and I suspect that is one of the reasons said group decided to ask v6ops to review the draft.
> WG] Working group chair hat on: Actually, there’s decent operator participation as a percentage of overall, but unfortunately there is very little participation in the WG period, so we weren’t comfortable with the level of feedback the draft had received thus far and asked for additional review.
> 
> You are now hearing from people who are network operators that they feel this was the wrong approach to adopt and that we do not concur with the consensus of the sunset4 working group.
> 
> WG] Yes, but based on your previous messages, you seem to have a fundamental issue with any IPv4/DCHPv4 configuration being sent over IPv6, and as I noted in my previous response to you, DHC is also moving toward the path of doing this, just not with a kill switch, and with different technical justification. Not saying that makes it right, but if it’s not, there’s a much larger discussion to be had, and the folks in DHC that are working on those drafts probably need similar feedback if there’s truly a technical problem with it and not that it simply isn’t architecturally pure enough for you. In other words, Sunset4 is moving this direction because it enables us to leverage work that is already happening in DHC, and we are trying to coordinate those efforts with them.  So I’d recommend going to read the drafts I pointed you to yesterday, and determining whether you have a problem with the whole concept or just sunset4’s particular piece of it, and proceeding accordingly. 

Conceptually, I think it is generally ill-advised, just as I wouldn’t advocate putting IPv6 name server options in DHCPv4 (though there are others who would support doing so).

I agree that the DHC working group may well need more feedback than they are getting. Unfortunately, I don’t have the bandwidth to keep up with DHC, sunset4, etc. and I do my best to keep up with v6ops as that is the one that seems most relevant to my immediate circumstances.

This draft happened to hit v6ops, so I commented on it as requested.

In an ideal world, I’d be able to do just as you suggest and push on all the right places. In the real world, I’ve probably already spent more time on this issue than I really should.

Owen