Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jari,

On Sep 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
We had an opportunity to fix that, but we blew it.

I think everyone agrees that having that flexibility
(ease of renumbering, no routing explosion in the
core etc) would be good.

So would world peace, motherhood, and apple pie. What are you willing to give up for it?

But I would suggest that instead of playing the
"what if" or "I told you so" games, we collectively
focus on solving the problem.

And I would suggest by ignoring history we are doomed to repeat it. I am not engaging in "I told you so" because I didn't -- you'll note I used "we". I am merely pointing out that we're either at or very quickly approaching a crossroads and the choices we have are constrained by the reality of the Internet today and past decisions we, the IETF, have made.

IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way. One can argue that it shouldn't be that way and that there should be a paradigm shift in the enterprises, ISPs, and grandmothers of the world, but commercial reality makes such a shift very, very hard.

And getting it solved
means having a solution that actually works, has all
the little details (like what the security is etc) worked
out, fits with the incentives that the various players
have, and so on.

Do you believe IPv4 (or ANY other successful large scale technology), when it was designed, had all the little details worked out?

As I have said elsewhere, I've come to believe that one of the fundamental failures of the IETF is that it permits or even encourages protocol design to be directed by corner cases. In this particular case, it isn't even clear to me there is agreement on what the problem we're trying to solve actually is.

And we have a place for that work to happen in the IRTF.

Actually, I suspect if the work were to happen in the IRTF, it would be doomed. The IRTF is, after all, focused on research. I can imagine the people in the IRTF contributing towards a solution but that isn't where a solution will come from. Given real world constraints, a solution will come from engineers (protocol, network, hardware, and/or software), singly or working together, coming up with an approach that meets real world requirements (not what researchers believe are real world requirements). It almost certainly won't be architecturally pure and it probably won't be pretty, but it will probably meet commercial and operational needs.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]