Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard)]

On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:

>
>
>To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the
>rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and
>refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover
>resources.

I don?t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don?t see any efforts.

>
>I have no intention of using Class E. I have no intention of developing
>code that uses Classe E. I will note that the code involved that is
>publicly searchable appears to be simple and small, the task that is
>large is adoption spread.

So this argument is moot?

>
>But perhaps we can all agree that standards should be accurate and
>should not be used to advance uninvolved agenda. And class E
>experimental status is inaccurate. And keeping that status serves
>nobody, except those who believe it helps marshal efforts away from
>IPv4. And that is top down.

So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class E?
That?s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody
can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to
direct IANA to do something with it.

If you want to direct IANA to distribute Class E space among the RIRs,
there?s more process, because you would also have to develop a global
policy (no problem, we get the NRO NC to write it and get consensus at
all the RIRs), and then each RIR would need to develop a policy under
which to allocate it. I?d be surprised if all that could happen in
less than three years.

In any of these processes, nothing will move forward until there is
consensus, and I don?t think there?s consensus. If you think your
argument can be persuasive, let?s write an internet-draft and get it
into the process.

Lee

>
>Joe
>