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

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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."

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:

> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually
> > impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in
> > the IETF since at least 2015.
> >
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus,
> > then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from
> > doesn’t like your idea.
>
> 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.
>
> When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open
> source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community
> grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find
> out.
>
> Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be
> excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on
> IPv4 issues.
>
> In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter
> pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the
> process and should be struck from the record.
>
> I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the
> process.
>
> > Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups
> > that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF
> > process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
> >
> > Owen
> This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in
> the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives.
>
> On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven
> agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy.
>
> Joe