Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Fri Jul 17 16:03:41 UTC 2015

Lee Howard wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Lee Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class
>>> E?
>>> That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody
>>> can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to
>>> direct IANA to do something with it.
>>>
>>
>> nope
> 
> “Nope?”

Nope, there were previous attempts that failed and the task was not
"easy enough", unnecessarily so.

> You mean you don’t want to update RFC1112?
> Or it’s not possible for somebody to write a draft telling IANA to assign
> space
> for an experiment? Somebody has to write a draft in order for the IETF to
> consider it,

Which has happened.

 and there has to be IETF consensus for it to get published as
> an
> RFC.
> 

Which did not happen, due in no small part, I allege, to spurious and
specious concerns about ipv6 adoption and to to irrelevant and
misprojected concerns as to whether it was "worth it".

> 
> I don’t see the relevance. Nobody there proposed reclassifying the space.
> Nobody had a proposal for an experiment. Nobody wanted an assignment from
> it.

Quoted directly there is an I-D to utilize at least some portion of the
space for what we later allocated public unicast /10 Carrier private.

> 
> 
>>
>> The only use I have in mind for the space is for it to cease being
>> classified as experimental and therefore treated as invalid.
> 
> You want the word “RESERVED” for some entries on this page changed:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
> What do you want it changed to?

Personally, a /6 of LSN/CGN private,  /8 (per rir?) of public early
adopter by the /16, and the rest reserved for if/when it ever becomes A)
more useful and/or B) rehabilitated,  /8 per rir.

But I would get  behind any effort for any status that would indicate
proper behavior for any/and all new updated stacks is to allow its use
without differentiation.

> 
> 
> There’s more to it than that.
> How would people who want to use it get assignments?
> Right now, there’s no policy for assigning that space.
> 

The first stop is to change the standard so that considering the address
illegal to use in software could be considered improper behavior. If the
community cant even get past that, and they have not in the past, no
other scheme stands a chance.

Tying objections to removing that barrier due to lack of a fully
acceptable allocation policy is unnecessarily inflating the hurdle to
that goal.

> You’ve told other people that there shouldn’t be a top-down restriction on
> this space; but there’s no top: it’s all consensus. The consensus here is
> very clear. You are welcome to try to change it, and a couple of us are
> trying to should you the processes (IETF, IANA, RIR) to do that.
> 

My categorization as inappropriate top down restrictions is specifically
calling out those who believe policy is a tool to direct and marshal
other peoples efforts,  away from what they consider competing goals.

I dont consider that a valid rational and I think its quite inappropriate.

> If all you want to do is vent, we’ll just move on to another thread.
> 
> Lee
> 

Venting is a form of consensus building. If there are any drafts
anywhere that could use some of that, please point them out.

Joe