North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Wed Sep 26 12:16:10 2007
  • Authentication-results: sj-dkim-1; [email protected]; dkim=pass (si g from verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4347; t=1190822735; x=1191686735; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;; [email protected]; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20WG=20Action=3A=20Conclusion=20of=20IP=20Version=206=2 0(ipv6) |Sender:=20; bh=VkRXQCNNGxiKYdQ2QiY4kZDhABUvhlvddIiH9+PJEfk=; b=TDg4HnMlcu/PhSSt8x9tvpRcLWHi1xD4BvkvC5XvK4n6TnZsF2NfFNv+mKdLCuR6AelBEzgU xwd72p9nWD87nQyH+ZwLSiAfujIPqQ1XfSjoXxv0LjZwpEuo8akaOYKsDv5A2nefKsLGH1HX5v YJyvBCKZyKn8CAUxyzSRcAKnI=;

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.

On Sep 25, 2007, at 5:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
true enough.  i guess this means that we get IPv6 "as is, where is"
and there will be limited new development of same.


On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:59:28PM +0000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

The subject line is amazing...

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:30:02 -0400
From: IESG Secretary <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Robert Hinden <[email protected]>,        Brian Haberman
<[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: WG Action:
Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

The IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) in the Internet Area has concluded.

The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.


A new Working Group, 6MAN, has been created to deal
with maintenance issues arising in IPv6 specifications.
The IPv6 WG is closed. This is an important milestone
for IPv6, marking the official closing of the IPv6
development effort.

The ADs would like to thank everyone -- chairs, authors,
editors, contributors -- who has been involved in the effort
over the years. The IPv6 working group and its predecessor,
IPNGWG, produced 79 RFCs (including 5 in the RFC queue).

Issues relating to IPv6 should in the future be taken up in
6MAN if they relate to problems discovered during
implementation or deployment; V6OPS if they relate to
operational issues; BOF proposals, individual submissions
etc. for new functionality.

The mailing list of the IPv6 WG stays alive; the list will
still be used by the 6MAN WG in order to avoid people
having to resubscribe and/or adjust their mail filters.

IETF-Announce mailing list
[email protected]

--Steve Bellovin,