[governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[McTim]

Hi Avri,

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>  On 27 Feb 2008, at 15:19, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>  > Actually, the reason people use the term "transition" is because the
>  > IETF used those terms from the beginning. Even today, we have
>  > "transition" techniques. That is what they are called in the official
>  > standards, and those names have been picked up and carried through via
>  > vendor literature. In retropsect, a poor choice of terms, but there it
>  > is.
>
>
>  I remember as long ago as four years ago trying to get people to
>  change to the language of co-existence.  I do not believe it was just
>  inertia that made that change impossible.  Are you sure that there
>  isn't still a strong component in the technical community that
>  believes in the universal deployment of IPv6 and the withering of
>  IPv4.

I am sure that many (if not most) think that eventually v4 will be
turned off.  I certainly think that this is the case, not for a long
time tho. I don't see a problem with that.


  Also while I admit I am only a tourist in IPv6 meetings and on
>  IPv6 mailing lists, I must say I have seen few indications that we are
>  tending toward an awareness of co-existence or that we working on
>  genuine co-existence.  In fact I am not sure I have seen the word co-
>  existence used on a V6 mailing list since a few occasions back in 2005.

The term in vogue now is "dual-stack", maybe that's why?

>
>  I am not trying to bash the V6 people here, a lot of them are my
>  friends.  What concerns me is that I believe that most people who work
>  on V6 are still working on the model of transition and are not really
>  giving serious consideration to co-existence (or at least as a tourist
>  in V6 land since 2004 I don't see it).  While the work being done is
>  technical  isn't it a policy decision on the part of IESG and IAB to
>  not have put a big push on getting us to think about the technical
>  issues of co-existence

It seems to me that there IS a big push on, which is one of the
reasons it has come up on this list.  The NANOG/SANOG IPv6 hours are
just the latest examples of this.

I'm not sure that RFC3710 or the IAB charter allow for this kind of
protocol marketing/pushing.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance