Subject: [sunset4] Closing Sunset4

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 04:51:17 +0000

Dear WG,

I feel the time has come to close Sunset4. As you all must realise IETF Working Groups are there to do work, and in discussion with the co-chairs it appears that the list of potential work for Sunset4 has dried up. It may be that some activity on a similar topic is needed in the future, however I feel that a future body of work should have a different charter specifically for that item. It has also been made quite clear with the discussions surrounding the last Sunset4 WG item that the IETF and the internet industry are simply not ready to change the status of IPv4 while, in reality, the move to IPv6 (only) will be a very long-tailed exercise. 

I’d like to thank all WG member’s contributions over the life of this WG. Some of the discussions have been both exciting and insightful. 

As AD, I would especially like to thank Marc Blanchet and Wes George for co-chairing Sunset4 with professionalism and enthusiasm. Thanks Marc and Wes!!

The WG will be officially closed later this week, along with the mailing list.

Thank you all!

Cheers
Terry (responsible AD for Sunset4)

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 07:29:23 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 15 May 2018, Terry Manderson wrote:

> different charter specifically for that item. It has also been made 
> quite clear with the discussions surrounding the last Sunset4 WG item 
> that the IETF and the internet industry are simply not ready to change 
> the status of IPv4 while, in reality, the move to IPv6 (only) will be a 
> very long-tailed exercise.

When MIF was closed, work was directed to another working group.

I'd like to see similar guidance for the closing of this WG. There is 
still work to be done, for instance the discussions in v6ops/6man on an 
"no-v4-here"-flag is quite obvious fit there, but other 
discussions/guidance on how to behave when there seems to be no IPv4 
around, where should this take place? For instance discussions on backoff 
timers for DHCPv4 / DNSSD v4 usage in the abscence of no automatic v4 seen 
when connecting?

I can understand that the discussions we've had are not enough to warrant 
a WG, but it doesn't mean there are no discussions at all. It would be 
good if they had a home.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 03:41:14 +0000

Hi Mikael,

That is a fair request.

I’m not sure the MIF example applies completely as the situations were different, however I’ll take on board the desire for AD guidance when it comes to work.

I appreciate the desire to have a ‘home’ for discussions. How about this. I’ll close the WG, but leave the sunset4 mailing list open at least until March next year. I’m sure that the volume of discussion up to then will help us evaluate the utility of keeping this list alive. I will naturally stay on the list and watch for any “where does this work go” type messages and guide where I can.

Cheers
Terry

On 15/05/2018, 15:29, "sunset4 on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    
    _______________________________________________
    sunset4 mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

---

From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 05:32:01 +0000

On 15 May 2018, at 4:51, Terry Manderson wrote:

Hi,

> I feel the time has come to close Sunset4. As you all must realise 
> IETF Working Groups are there to do work, and in discussion with the 
> co-chairs it appears that the list of potential work for Sunset4 has 
> dried up. It may be that some activity on a similar topic is needed in 
> the future, however I feel that a future body of work should have a 
> the status of IPv4 while, in reality, the move to IPv6 (only) will be 
> a very long-tailed exercise.
>
> I’d like to thank all WG member’s contributions over the life of 
> this WG. Some of the discussions have been both exciting and 
> insightful.
>
> As AD, I would especially like to thank Marc Blanchet and Wes George 
> for co-chairing Sunset4 with professionalism and enthusiasm. Thanks 
> Marc and Wes!!
>

Thank you!  Fianlly!  “We are done with IPv4” is a great statement!  
Can you close it on 6/6 please after 6 years only 6 years late .. :)

/bz

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 08:31:48 -0400

> I’m not sure the MIF example applies completely as the situations were
    > different, however I’ll take on board the desire for AD guidance when
    > it comes to work.

    > I appreciate the desire to have a ‘home’ for discussions. How about
    > this. I’ll close the WG, but leave the sunset4 mailing list open at
    > least until March next year. I’m sure that the volume of discussion up

I'm okay with this.
My impression is that sunset4 tried hard, but failed to get consensus.
That's not a failure to get work done --- not getting consensus usually
takes longer than a trivial consensus.

My take is that sunset4 was sligthly premature; operators aren't ready do to
this.  Yes, there are **now** data centers where IPv4 is going away, but
those DC also are almost always closed proprietary environments (even if the
components are open source, I can't buy a cabinet in that space, and they
don't run off-the-shelf OS builds).

I think that we wanted to be premature, such that we could get OS vendors
to test having no IPv4 *now*, and not discover things are broken ten years
later when the equipement can't be replaced.  We actually spured a few OS
vendors (FreeBSD, Linux, others) to try the test... many discovered
"127.0.0.1" hard code in many places.

In the end, the problem is that funded OS vendors at the IETF has been
"reduced" to Apple and Google, neither of which is in the desktop market
it seems... While MS is clearly still here, funded Linux OS/networking people
are not at IETF (Wouters excepted!).

So sunset4 did as much work as it could without broad OS vendor consensus.
I believe that the situation will change once more operators begin to
attempt to really turn off IPv4 in a non-3G space.

Please keep the list alive.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:44:06 +0000

> My take is that sunset4 was sligthly premature;

I don’t think so.

I said on jabber during the end of the first WG meeting:
https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/[email-masked]/2012-07-30.html
“[22:12:29] <[email-masked]> Have you guys concluded the WG yet? I 
thought the only reason to open it was to close it again immediately and 
be done with the stuff.”

> operators aren't ready do to

Really?  Really?  Why-o-why?

> to test having no IPv4 *now*,

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8529718.htm

> and not discover things are broken ten years

Sunset4 didn’t exist when FreeBSD bits could go IPv6-only, when I had 
an IPv6-only FreeBSD-based desktop (and still do at home and in a VM on 
this commercial OS I have to use for other reasons at time).   I gave a 
presentation earlier that year about some of the small nits I found 
going (mostly) IPv6-only (in 2010/1).

And MS at time, if I don’t misremember, could disable IPv4 already as 
well.

> are not at IETF (Wouters excepted!).

The problem is that IETF is re-active rather than pro-active in a lot of 
things (of my interest).
The problem is that people write too much text before writing code.
The problem is that it’s $$$s not steering the world into a supposedly 
better future anymore.

(wrong audience;  this should probably go to ietf@ )

> attempt to really turn off IPv4 in a non-3G space.

You don’t need OS vendor consensus.  You need to publish an RFC.  
Whether they want to be RFC compliant or not is their problem.  If they 
find the money to send 200 people to IETF voting then “nah” they 
could easily also fix their code and send one developer and say “Yes 
we can”.   It’s an attitude problem, it’s politics, and 
mis-bean-counting, not a technical problem.

“We believe in working code . . .” — really?

I am sitting in a country currently where IPv6 is not on the list of .. 
to my best knowledge.  Yet you’ll find this email, until it leaves my 
admin-domain, not having a single IPv4 address in the Received: lines.   
I sorted my servers and VPN in 2010 sitting in a hotel room in Sunnyvale 
hacking kernels and rebooting servers on the other side of the world, 
right after finding IPv6 problems on Googles campus network (which was a 
vendor problem, not theirs, yet they hadn’t noticed as their clients 
were not different enough), .. .  I have an IPv6 address on my Laptop.  
I am a geek;  I just did it back then.   And even better, it cost me 
nothing but getting code working, so was a tripple win:  (1) working 
IPv6 IPsec VPN, (2) Open Source gained patches, (3) I got rid of more 
IPv4.  When will you (any reader of this message) get this working, 
contribute to the public, and how much will it cost you?  A few cookies 
and two drinks?  That’s all it took and a few hours of time.  And 
being able to work on a great code base of other giants.

Stop re-acting and complaining,  look ahead;  lead not follow!  Live a 
dream not dream about a life which could be.   That said, I am done 
here.

So close the damn thing if you don’t want to publish an RFC anymore 
and let people find vendor bashing space elsewhere;  move on, don’t 
use an open list as an alibi.

/bz back to living a life and stopping to complain.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:08:27 +0200

Le 16/05/2018 à 14:31, Michael Richardson a écrit :
[...]
> My take is that sunset4 was sligthly premature;

My take is that sunset is a great name.

I would have loved to learn in this group a few things:
- is there a process in place that gives back to IANA the unused IPv4
   space.  How much is this process used?
- why new technologies and sites get invented yet IPv6 is not on them
   (deployed IoT w/ IPv4, self-driving cars w/ IPv4, new big office
   buildings w/ IPv4, and so on).
- in 5G why there is no GTP replacement using QUIC instead of UDP and
   IPv6 instead of IPv4.

And, my last question, my most preferred, which I know is polarizing, 
soo feel free to ignore: why does not IETF put exclusive content on 
IPv6?  Generally speaking I have never heard of some highly interesting 
content that is available on IPv6.  When that happens immediately 
somebody puts in on IPv4 too.

Or maybe it's just a matter of time, and things are moving slower than 
one's expectations.

> this.  Yes, there are **now** data centers where IPv4 is going away

Yes I learned that recently and it was news to me.

, but
> don't run off-the-shelf OS builds).

It seems though they can be accessed on the Internet, right?  I mean 
such a data center can be accessed freely on IPv6, and for a fee put 
content there.  That content would not be available on IPv4.

I think the next step would be to have free upload capability (like 
drive.google but w/o IPv4).

> Please keep the list alive.

I agree.

And make new inspiring stickers :-)

Alex

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:22:26 -0400

>   space.  How much is this process used?
I believe each RIR has a separate process for the return of unused space.
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-historical-resources/returned-ipv4-address-space/
https://www.arin.net/resources/return_revoke.html
etc.

It's used rarely, but somewhat; when an organization stops paying their 
bill, the RIR might reclaim the addresses.
Most organizations in most regions would rather sell their unneeded IPv4 
addresses, since prices are rapidly approaching US$20 per address.

>   buildings w/ IPv4, and so on).

1. Shortsightedness
2. Developers hacking together what they barely know
3. Using an OS designed for embedded systems that's based on a very old 
Linux without IPv6 support.

> - in 5G why there is no GTP replacement using QUIC instead of UDP and

5G is still in development, but I really don't know.

> IPv6?  Generally speaking I have never heard of some highly 
> interesting content that is available on IPv6. When that happens 
> immediately somebody puts in on IPv4 too.

Because as an open body, IETF content must be available to everyone, and 
not everyone has IPv6.

Any general content will need to be available over IPv4 until at least 
2024, when 90% or more of the world is IPv6-capable. Within the next 
couple of years I can imagine a phone app designed exclusively for users 
in the US that was only IPv6-capable, since US mobile is nearly all 
IPv6. Same for India, maybe, and a few other countries.

> content there.  That content would not be available on IPv4.
No: examples include Facebook and LinkedIn, which have very functional 
edge translation from IPv4.

> drive.google but w/o IPv4).
Well, there was a marvelous presentation by Mythic Beasts at v6ops at 
IETF101-London.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-only-hosting-00

But if what you want is for someone to sacrifice their revenue or 
increase their costs For The Good of IPv6, I would not expect that to 
happen.

> And make new inspiring stickers :-)

I have some for Montreal, even though I won't be there. :-)

Lee

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:10:06 -0400

Hi,

> https://www.arin.net/resources/return_revoke.html

And there is one more global policy:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion-2012-05-08-en

Alejandro,

---

From: Leo Gaspard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 02:05:19 +0200

On 05/16/2018 09:22 PM, Lee Howard wrote:>> - why new technologies and
sites get invented yet IPv6 is not on them
> Linux without IPv6 support.

(getting ready to be lapidated)

For my end-user (like, a computer and a rental server at a hosting
company) point of view:

 * Being dual-stack is painful to configure and risky from a security
point of view (hello iptables and ip6tables getting out-of-sync, IPv6
privacy extension, etc.)

 * IPv6-only requires NAT64 to get things to work (just see the issues
mentioned by the Mythic Beasts presentation from IETF101 you linked to,
even with NAT64 things don't work out of the box)

 * IPv4-only requires nothing, as NAT when required is already handled
by devices out of my line of sight (eg. routers from where I connect, etc)

Also, for my server, setting up a NAT64 is completely useless, as the
NAT64 would need to run on… the same server, meaning that it needs to be
dual-stack anyway.

So, as an end-user, the easiest solution for me for now is
`ipv6.disable=1`, and I'll switch to `ipv4.disable=1` when it will exist
and the rest of the world will be ready for it. Yes, I know this is a
chicken-and-egg problem.

This is likely something that should be addressed by this WG (and the
reason why I subscribed and lurked for a while), but I have absolutely
no idea how.

(and now I need to flee before being actually lapidated)

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 17:03:08 -0400

> point of view (hello iptables and ip6tables getting out-of-sync, IPv6
Can you elaborate on the pain? I may be too close to it to feel it anymore.

> even with NAT64 things don't work out of the box)
Well, it probably requires translation somewhere, but:
1. Not if you're on 4G
2. Not if you control the network
3. There are other transition mechanisms than NAT64.

> by devices out of my line of sight (eg. routers from where I connect, etc)

As long as device-to-server communication is the only way you would ever 
want to communicate. And as long as 464xlat or DS-Lite or whatever 
transition mechanism the intermediate networks use doesn't bother you.

> NAT64 would need to run on… the same server, meaning that it needs to be
Sure, in that scenario. It's uncommon, I think, to find a server all by 
itself. NAT64 or SIIT-DC make more sense at the edge of a data center. 
Happy to run that for you. :)
> and the rest of the world will be ready for it. Yes, I know this is a

How will you decide it's time to do that?
How much notice will you have that you can/should/must do it, and how 
long will it take?
Logistic projection shows 50% of the world using IPv6 to reach Google in 
early 2020, and 80-90% in 2022-2023.
Whatever countries your devices are in may have a different growth 
curve, and may adopt transition technologies at a different rate.

> reason why I subscribed and lurked for a while), but I have absolutely

Personally, I do not want to force anyone to deploy IPv6 before it makes 
sense for them. I do, however, want to make sure everyone who needs to 
make a decision about when to do it is well-informed about it, and the 
risks and opportunities of deploying or not deploying.

Lee