On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:59:58PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it > deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both > > * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, > with and without local/auto config. > > * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want > to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, > and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a > DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). > > and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday > afternoon of the meeting. > > If we can't do that, we should be very seriously reviewing our > protocols and specifications: that sort of thing shouldn't be, > in any sense, an experiment at this stage. Wow! Is that an "IETF First" for anyone else? Ever since my first IETF, I was well aware that many folks held to the unfortunate fallacy that, "because we do X at IETF meetings and it works allright, it is therefore sufficient for the rest of the Internet." No matter how much people point out the error in this thinking, it is perpetuated...as recently as the IETF 69 tech plenary, where we were told that firewalls were becoming obsolete, evidenced by their lack of use at IETF meetings. There's only one word for it: Astounding. I have never, until now, heard the contrary fallacy attempted. That is, "because we did X at an IETF meeting and it did not work allright, it is therefore insufficient for the Internet." That's a new one on me. Clever, but wrong: networks much larger than 1,200 laptops use DHCPv4 on a daily basis all over the Internet without similar symptoms. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgptTrt21kx9Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf