The subject line is amazing...
true enough. i guess this means that we get IPv6 "as is, where is"
and there will be limited new development of same.
--bill
You make this sound negative.
The IETF has since I have been involved with it had a problem with standing working groups. Some of the "temporary" working groups have taken a huge long time; IPsec lived seven years before it published its first RFC, for example. But in course of time, the IETF says "that phase is over, we're starting a new phase". That's how I read this.
We started discussions in 1992, IIRC, with IPNG, which looked at several options and decided on the one we now call IPv6. That set of documents is 25 documents in the range from RFC 1550 (1993) through 1955 (1996) plus documents regarding TUBA, CATNIP, PIP, NIMROD, and the original Deering and Hinden proposals that merged to form IPv6.
That working group was called "IP Next Generation". It closed, and an "IPv6" Working Group was opened.
The initial development of IPv6 took perhaps five years, starting from the Deering and Hinden proposals (internet drafts) and culminating with a batch of documents in winter 1998-1999, some of which were at Draft Standard (proven functional and interoperable). Those documents, centering around RFC 2460, have been and are IPv6, whatever your opinion of that may be. Like RFC 791, that is the basis. It hasn't been changing, and it's not likely to change. These include the basic IPv6 ICMP, OSPF, Neighbor Discovery, "how to run it on Ethernet etc", address format, and that sort of thing.
Since then, the IPv6 WG and several satellite WG including multi6, shim6, and v6ops, has dealt with "topics" more than "protocols" - renumbering, privacy addressing, transition mechanisms, multihoming, and so on - 124 RFCs working through various issues, many of them operational in nature.
As I read this statement, it is saying that the working group opened in, what was it, 1995 maybe, has largely done what it was intended to do. There is still work to do, which is why there is an IPv6 Maintenance WG, IPv6 Operations, and a couple of others, but that is not to be confused with the definition work done in the mid-late 1990's or what has gone on the past eight years.
To me, the idea that the previous phase is over and we're in a new phase is a positive statement, not a negative one.
To me, the idea that the previous phase is over and we're in a new phase
is a positive statement, not a negative one.
being an engineer, i will judge by results. but the track record is not
impressive.
randy
I was more amused by the Subject: line -- that IP Version 6 has
concluded, rather than the working group... I agree that closing old
groups will often -- though not always -- result in focusing on the
newer and more important issues, rather than spending time polishing
the chrome on the old issues.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
I can't conceive of any possible solution to IPv6 mobility, multihoming,
routing, <insert deficiency here> which would find the mere fact that the
WG is closed a problem, given that a decade of the WG being *open* didn't
produce deployable results.
Maybe the IETF should "conclude BGP version 4"?
Iljitsch
PS. 
Steven,
I was more amused by the Subject: line -- that IP Version 6 has
concluded, rather than the working group...
The subject line was indeed funny. All IETF WG termination
announcements are of this form. I guess we must change
the format or stop naming our WGs with the name of a
still useful technology
Jari
What Fred said is right.
Indeed, we closed the working group because it had completed
its task. The base is done and its time to move on.
That being said, everyone's painfully aware that the Internet
isn't complete yet and there are significant challenges ahead.
IPv6 -- just like any other technology that we have (SIP, DHCP, ...)
doesn't work well in all situations, needs new features, has
bugs, etc. And there are many known issues in IPv6, from
technical to deployment barriers. For these reasons we already
have a set of focused groups (6man, v6ops, rrg/shim6, various
IPv6 over Foo WGs, ...) looking at specific problems. If there
is a need for more groups, we can create new ones.
Jari
Fred Baker kirjoitti:
If there is a need for more groups, we can create new ones.
with all due respect, jari; maybe the number of groups is neither the
problem nor the solution
too much energy has been and is still being wasted dealing with overly
cute/complex ideas these wgs invent to fancy up ipv6 so it will be
deployed; from tla/nla/... to ula to sham6. this has prevented focusing
on the real problems of deployment so they can be solved.
and the unscalable tunneling schemes are making a mess, in architecture,
in implementation, in user experience. the latter is causing folk to
turn off ipv6.
there is a problem that the ivtf is dominated by the very vendors who
are holding up deployment by incomplete, poorly performing, expensive to
scale products. and adding complexity and features is not helping this
either.
randy
It's not like the operators aren't welcome. Change that.
It's not like the operators aren't welcome.
fred, you are talking to the guy harald alvestrand, ietf chair, fired.
sorry i was so sensitive that it made me feel unwelcome.
hint: the operators did not leave because of the bad food.
randy
well, if it's any consolation, you're the guy that routinely tells me on public mailing lists that anyone that is not an operator, and especially senior people from vendor companies, is completely clueless on all topics relating to the Internet. I have my days of feeling unwelcome too.
Harald was two IETF chairs back. I was three IETF chairs back. You offered repeatedly to resign when you and I worked together, and I always talked you into staying.
There, we're even. Now, can we please get constructive?
I chair a working group called IPv6 Operations. It's mailing list is hosted on your computer - v6ops@ops.ietf.org. The purpose of the working group is to provide operators, quite a number of which attend, with a place where they can say anything they want and give very clear guidance to the IETF. If the operators have anything to say on the topic, I don't know how much more clearly the IETF can say "we're listening".
Crabbing about it doesn't get it fixed. Help us fix it.
and the unscalable tunneling schemes are making a mess, in architecture,
in implementation, in user experience. the latter is causing folk to
turn off ipv6.
So run IPv6 natively and your tunneling issues are history.
there is a problem that the ivtf
IVTF? That sounds like a fertility treatment...
is dominated by the very vendors who
are holding up deployment by incomplete, poorly performing, expensive to
scale products. and adding complexity and features is not helping this
either.
Strange. What I keep hearing is "we can't possibly deploy IPv6 until it has <insert favorite IPv4 feature>". (And then when that feature becomes available somehow IPv6 still isn't deployed.)
The simple truth is that IPv6 will be widely deployed as soon as it reduces cost / increases income / enables features that can't be had otherwise. The rest is just details which we generally get 80% right, which makes for an annoying 20% but that's life.
I chair a working group called IPv6 Operations.
how droll. does an operator chair the ipv6 vendors group? there sure
is a lot of work to be done in that area.
Crabbing about it doesn't get it fixed. Help us fix it.
i am spending a *lot* of my time doing that, see
<http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/>.
i just don't happen to think the ivtf is a useful place to do so.
<http://rip.psg.com/~randy/051000.ccr-ivtf.html>
randy
So run IPv6 natively and your tunneling issues are history.
son, get a clue. i work for the first isp on the bleeping planet to
deploy native ipv6
randy
no, but m co-chair is an operator - Kurtis Lingqvist.
Get constructive.
I know. I've been following your work for some time now:
,3,Oceania_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,2400,CM,XA
I know. I've been following your work for some time now:
,3,Oceania_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,2400,CM,XA
that's a cheap easy one. the challenge is finding the two uucp bang
paths for me before the internet/fidonet, and my arpanet address.
randy
Randy,
with all due respect, jari; maybe the number of groups is neither the
problem nor the solutiontoo much energy has been and is still being wasted dealing with overly
cute/complex ideas these wgs invent to fancy up ipv6 so it will be
deployed; from tla/nla/... to ula to sham6. this has prevented focusing
on the real problems of deployment so they can be solved.
I know this very well. But I'm listening. We are already trying
to do something about nat-pt. What else would you see as
a priority?
Jari