Subject: Should people still be making IPv4 products?

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:21:02 -0800

Christian Huitema wrote:
>The other strong argument is that using IPv6 link local is a
>better solution than what zeroconf attempts to do with the IPv4
>hack: at least, you get addresses that are for all practical
>purposes globally unique, and thus are not affected by events
>such as link split or intermittent connectivity.

I haven't seen anyone on this list argue that IPv6 is a bad idea. I think 
most people would agree that IPv6 is a good idea, and when it is 
ubiquitous we'll be happy.

However, the fact is that IPv4 is useful for products today. Mac OS and 
Windows have done IPv4LL for years. Other vendors want to make IPv4LL 
products too, and they want a standard to follow.

There appears to be a small community of people who think that indefinite 
stalling of this document will somehow contribute to faster adoption of 
IPv6. The sad irony here is that the unending stalling of IPv4LL has just 
served to keep it in the spotlight, whereas if it had been published a 
year or two ago, it would be largely forgotten by now.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * Chairman, IETF Zeroconf
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Alf Watt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:45:41 -0800

> ubiquitous we'll be happy.

I think it worth asserting that as long as IPv6 is not widely deployed some
issues in it's own LL and auto configuration implementations may remain
masked by a lack of real-world test cases. Working out standards for LL and
auto configuration in IPv4, which can be tested into real-world
environments, will almost certainly help strengthen IPV6 by providing
profiling and debugging data along with proven techniques and algorithms.

> products too, and they want a standard to follow.

These vendors will also learn from their IPv4LL implementations and when
they do  get around to implementing IPv6 they will be more likely to get it
right, having had some practice.

I really believe that any conflict between IPv4 and IPv6 is purely
political. Allowing IPv4 to continue evolving during IPv6's infancy allows
both to become a more robust protocols and can only help speed the growth
and adoption of the younger.

Adding modern features to IPv4 also helps to spread the word about v6. When
less-technical people come to you excited about zero configuration consider
it an opportunity to promote IPv6 which has all that and more.

Best,
Alf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:59:26 -0500

> Adding modern features to IPv4 also helps to spread the word about v6.

it's a bit disingeneous to call features that break IPv4 'modern'.