Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)

Sun Oct 17 00:26:28 UTC 2010

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
> Bill Bogstad <bogstad at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman at es.net> wrote:
>> >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
>> >> From: Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
>> >> Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>> >
>> > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
>> > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
>> > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
>> > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
>>
>> And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related.  That
>> seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have
>> implemented them by now.
>>
>
> The IETF standards process is different to other standards
> organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is
> much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input
> into the decision.

I read my first RFC sometime in 1984.   I still find it odd that after
something like a decade
of development/operational history NONE of the IPv6 related RFCs have
made it all the way to full standard status.   This might be a minor
point but I think that not making at least some of the base IPv6 RFCs
full standards probably slowed down deployment.   OTOH, now that
people are convinced that they won't be able to get more IPv4
addresses in the near future; a possible perception that IPv6 was
"experimental" may no longer matter...

Bill Bogstad