>> no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not >> operationally feasible". also, I suggest that the RIRs are only >> considering operations from a narrow point-of-view. > > Besides the lack of widespread operational adoption, no, no one has > proven it can't work. If "it" was operationally feasible, would we be > discussing this now? maybe. just because the RIRs decided not to do as IETF recommended doesn't mean it's not operationally feasible to follow the recommendation. at least, I think we need more detailed feedback than that before being convinced. > The RIRs do not limit the discussion of operations experience to a > narrow few sources, rather the the discussion is open to all and an > array of perspectives are offered. The RIRs do not per se discuss > operations, the discussion is over policies that are reflective of > real world operational experience. what I meant was that users' operations are arguably as important as ISPs operations, and I presume that because of their membership the RIRs are only considering the latter. >> perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its >> ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in >> IETF than in ARIN. > It's not a matter of ownership but whether the engineering solution is > still germane to real world needs. they are separate problems. if the recommendations we made are not viable, then we need to know that so we can fix it. > IPv6 (as I first understood it) did have a business model assumed - > that one ISP would be all that an enterprise customer would need, I don't know anybody who assumed that. I think it was instead assumed that multihomed sites could make do with multiple (prefixes,addresses) per (net,host) and that applications could somehow tolerate having multiple source and destination addresses, be able to pick a reasonable pair from among those available, and fail over to another source or destination address when one end or another renumbered or the connection failed. (All of which I find rather dubious, but it's not the same thing as assuming that there would be one ISP for an enterprise.) > Okay, maybe I'm stretching the point here. I am not sure why I am > bothering to post. I guess I've become disappointed in the amount of > disrespect displayed in this thread. well, I'm disappointed in the amount of disrespect displayed by RIRs. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf