Subject: [Int-area] New draft: The IETF Will Continue Maintaining IPv4 (draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4)

From: Seth David Schoen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 11:59:20 -0700

Hi intarea,

When we presented our reserved address space drafts at the previous IETF
meeting, we noticed that the most common concern was not so much about
the substance of our proposals as about the question of whether intarea
and the IETF should be working on IPv4 fixes at all.

This question has been discussed on and off over the past few years. It
was, in a way, the subject of an entire now-concluded working group in
its own right (sunset4).  We thought we should go to the heart of the
matter and propose to confirm that the IETF intends to keep maintaining
IPv4.

As our draft notes, this is the opposite of a proposed consensus item
from sunset4 which stated that the IETF would stop working on IPv4.  That
notion raised many concerns for community members, and we now hope to
see whether a consensus to continue maintaining IPv4 can be found.

Our draft emphasizes that IPv4 is the most-used network layer protocol
in the world, that it's expected to be widely used for the foreseeable
future, that the IETF is the historic home of IPv4 standardization, and that
there continue to be coordination tasks for IPv4 implementations which
the IETF is best-suited to host.  Those include not only our own proposals
about address space, but also numerous work items on various IPv4 topics
that have arisen and become RFCs over the past decade.

Our draft does not question or alter the community's consensus in favor
of IPv6 adoption, but states that neglecting IPv4 is not a part of the
IETF's transition plan.

You can find it at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4/

We invite discussion leading up to our presentation and Q&A at the
intarea session (13:30 UTC) on Tuesday, March 22, during IETF113 in
Vienna.  Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the
draft.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:04:53 +1300

Hi,

> Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the
> draft.

I have no questions.

IMHO the draft is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's a
matter of common sense that the IETF will fix things that *need*
fixing, even if they are specific to IPv4. It's a matter of fact
that IPv4 will continue to coexist with IPv6 until nobody uses
IPv4 any more. But it would be a mistake to apply scarce IETF
resources for anything but serious fixes, and this draft opens
the door to that. Consider for example the phrase "ongoing
standardization" near the end of section 7. That is exactly
what we do not need.

FWIW I do not consider the minor wastage of IPv4 addresses that
the same authors are concerned about to be serious enough to need
fixing. We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes,
and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category.

When there is an issue that is serious enough to justify IETF
effort, and specific to IPv4, the intarea WG charter already
allows for it. That's why this draft seems unnecessary to me.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 16-Mar-22 07:59, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:28:59 -0400

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 4:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> […]
> IMHO the draft is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

+1

Margaret

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:31:55 +0100

+1 

El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked] en nombre de [email-masked]> escribió:

    Hi,

    I have no questions.

    Regards
        Brian Carpenter

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:36:42 -0500

+1

Behcet

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" <
> [email-masked] en nombre de [email-masked]>
> escribió:
>
>     Hi,
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:07:28 +0000

> On 15 Mar 2022, at 20:04, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Well said! There is nothing to be gained from further consideration on this draft - or for the IETF to expend significant effort on the dregs of IPv4 space.

There is effectively no more IPv4 space to issue. Get over it.

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:31:13 -0700

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> fixing. 

+1 on that, especially.

I.e., regardless of IPv6, this is working in too far in the margins to be worth pursuit.

Joe

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 18:46:46 -0400

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 2:59 PM Seth David Schoen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> and the IETF should be working on IPv4 fixes at all

I can't say for sure whether this was the most common concern, but what I
remember as the main concern was that your proposal wouldn't actually do
what you want, but would create a great deal of work for the IETF and for
implementors, with no clear upside.

That’s actually a good test for whether it makes sense to do new IPv4
maintenance work, and I don’t think changing the balance on that is going
to be an improvement.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:22:19 -0700

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:31 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 

I agree with that as well.

Bob