Paul Vixie wrote: >> Mumble. It's hard for me to buy the idea of there not being a "core" >> portion of the Internet from which all public addresses are reachable. >> > > i was going to say, "but these addresses aren't public", but then i saw the > larger problem, which is that the internet's architecture has guardians who > are able to either buy into, or not, various ideas. "guardians" seems a bit skewed. within IETF, the RIRs, ICANN, USDoC, Verisign, Cisco, or Microsoft it might make sense to think of there being guardians who can promote a bad technology or block a good one, each within their particular sphere. but I find it hard to think of the LAN manager who buys a NAT box as being a guardian. sure the vendors hawked them and misrepresented them, but the consumers kept buying them, because there wasn't a better way to get that functionality in IPv4. > sometimes this is a > good thing, as with the wildcard *.COM that pointed to a sitefinder service. > other times this isn't a good thing, as occurred with NAT, firewalls, and > application layer gateways. how to tell good from bad? i think it's > whether the guardians think the idea is a stupid waste of the proposer's > time, or whether they think it will do outright harm. > > "harm" becomes the important term in that equation... is it harmful to let > someone else's idea go forward because it will dilute the need for a better > solution? that's why a lot of people think DNSSEC DLV is bad -- simply that > it would take pressure off signing the root zone. is it harmful to set up > a service that stops RCODE=3 responses from coming back when a nonexistent > name ending in ".COM" is looked up? that's what i said when verisign added > a *.COM wildcard pointing to sitefinder. > > without a consensus on what it means "to harm", we're sort of stuck. ULA-G > (and therefore ULA-C) would allow consenting adults to exchange routes using > the whois and in-addr infrastructure that has historically been reserved for > "public networking". lots of people, fearing leakage of "local" to "public", > think there is too much latent harm in this kind of centralized locality. in > the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults' asses every > day and twice on sunday. and that's the real problem here, i finally think. > it certainly is a problem. and yet failure to provide direction seems to cause even more problems. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf