Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Deprecation of "ip6.int"' to BCP

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:30:30 -0700

this is a next step in removing support for 6 years of legacy
code in endsystems.  given that some folks will not upgrade
without incentive, this document provides RIRs and others
with justification for terminating service for this legacy code.

i would much prefer carrots instead of sticks to motivate folks
but if sticks are all you get, then so be it.  Geoff has done a
good job here - although this will not make ip6.int go away.

On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:00, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
> consider the
> following document:
>
> - 'Deprecation of "ip6.int" '
>    <draft-huston-ip6-int-03.txt> as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-07-01.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-ip6-int-03.txt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:51:26 -0400

>good job here - although this will not make ip6.int go away.

Re: carrots and sticks vs. sticks alone:

I think sparing the stick is sometimes coddling and not prudent 
operational practice.

The victims of this change, if I guess correctly, are users of 
cutting-edge software (also know as early adopters) that have not 
kept up their end of the bargain.  Meaning that they have not kept up 
to date with the technology they have been helping produce.  If 
that's the case, a stick is appropriate.

The carrots should go to the developers and purveyors of the software 
that still look up in ip6.int, to lead them to drop that code 
segment.  Now that there is a 3ffe space in ip6.arpa, there's no 
reason not to drop the code.  (What if the data in ip6.int and 
ip6.arpa differs for an address?)

How can the Internet ever progress technically if we can't retire 
dead end technologies, reclaim experimental allocations, and prune 
back bad ideas?  If we can't, we will act conservatively when it 
comes to experimenting or pay a huge expense in operating a poorly 
architected system.  How many times have we been afraid to let loose 
a technology because of what it might become?  Or release a document 
that isn't fully thought through?

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.