Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Thu Mar 31 22:19:23 UTC 2022

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:

> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>> seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
> That is not an accurate statement.
> The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by
> Brian Carpenter.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/
> He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to
> get worked on , it will be worked on, but the consensus solution to V4
> address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a
> solved problem.
> Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. But the
> problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the
> solution that they chose."

I suspect people differ in their understanding of the word "consensus":


"Definition of *consensus*

: general agreement : UNANIMITY

Versus the IETF:
(and subsequently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 )

specifically, this paragraph:

"Any finding of rough consensus needs at some level to be a satisfactory
explanation to the person(s) raising the issue of why their concern is not
going to be dealt with. A good outcome is for the objector to be satisfied
that, although their issue is not being accommodated in the final product,
they understand and accept the outcome. Remember, if the objector feels
that the issue is so essential that it must be attended to, they always
have the option to file an appeal. A technical error is always a valid
basis for an appeal, and a chair or AD has the freedom and the
responsibility to say, "The group did not take this technical issue into
proper account." Simply having a number of people agreeing to dismiss an
objection is not enough."

It would seem that Brian Carpenter's message drifted more towards the
dictionary definition of "consensus" than what the IETF has historically
used to determine "consensus".

Brian seems to have tried to sweep under the carpet a very serious
problem without properly addressing it, by saying (direct quote):
"We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes,
and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category."

But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers,
at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any
success on the global internet today.  There's too many IPv6-ish networks
out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be
without v4 connectivity also in place.  In order to deploy an IPv6 network
today, you *must* also have IPv4 addresses to work with.  Try to ping
apple.com via v6, or microsoft.com via v6, and see how far you get.
Closer to home, try to ping juniper.com/juniper.net via v6, or nokia.com,
and you'll find there's a whole bunch of assumptions that you've got
some level of working IPv4 in the picture to talk to your hardware and
software vendors.

In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
somewhere in your network.  IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.

For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's
not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is
exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of


6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>.  One
hundred people for and five people against might not be rough

   Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3>
discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when
   objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and
   accommodated if necessary).  Because of this, using rough consensus
   avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of
   folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be
   dealt with before consensus can be declared. "

The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the
at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it
historic, and
no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion.  Until then, so long
being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional
the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220331/26428fea/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list