Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
>
> > All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to
> > enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of
> > the way.
>
> If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RFC that
> changes the word "experimental" to "something else".

Yes. Even me.

> But you do not want
> IANA and the 5 RIRs to implement policies to hand out this space.

I dont consider that a necessary part of status change.

> Nor do
> you expect any vendor to change anything?

I dont expect them to change anything unless experimental/reserved for 
future potentially non-unicast protocol behavior is removed from IETF 
standards.

> May i then suggest that "something else" could be "junk" or "useless" ?

Which would still render software that refused to allow use of the space 
non standards compliant, so I can accept that as a starting basis.

> Fact is that it is junk. It is probably not even routable in the default
> free zone.

Anyone up for an experiment? Probably need to change the standards first.

> Nobody is going to want a class E address. Even if your own equipment was
> updated to allow it, you would not be able to communicate with most of the
> internet. Tell me, in what timeframe do you expect that would change, if
> someone did write that RFC and got it approved?

A lot sooner if people would stop complaining that it takes too long.

Otherwise, never.


> You got it all wrong when you believe it is a top down decision. It is the
> opposite. You are fighting _consensus_. Nobody wants to change the status
> of class E because it would not work and would only confuse.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur

Plenty of people want(ed) to change the status. The objections of the 
naysayers amount(ed) to, we think it will take too long to be usable in 
equivalent fashion to current unicast, and we think if it ever is usable 
it wont be enough of a difference to have made it worth it and we want 
ipv6 instead so we dont want anyone to even try.

Even if all those objections are valid, they still do not justify doing 
nothing.

Joe