Yes, please, stop immediately this thread (at least the "personal" way it is going on) or I will be forced as sergeant-at-arms to remove the participants from the IETF mail exploder. Regards, Jordi > From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@xxxxxxx> > Reply-To: <rbarnes@xxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:04:46 -0700 > To: Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Noel Chiappa > <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) > > NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT > > IETF Ad Hominem Discussions > > This group is dedicated to the discussion of the personal flaws of > IETF participants. > -- Airing of old grievances > -- Arguments about who gets credit for what > -- Revelation of hidden conflicts of interest / conspiracies > > <http://groups.google.com/group/ietf-ad-hominem> > > > > > On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:29 PM, Michel Py wrote: > >>> Michel Py wrote: >>>> Has it occurred to you that, if it was not for your >>>> blind opposition to NAT, we could be living in a world >>>> of 6to4 implemented in the ubiquitous NAT box? >> >>> Keith Moore wrote: >>> Why do you think I proposed 6to4 in the first place? There >>> was no vendor interest in putting 6to4 in NAT boxes. >> >> They got tired of systematic torpedoing of anything that looked like >> NAT, walked like NAT, quacked like NAT and being told relentlessly >> that >> their product was crap in a plastic box and decided that it was less >> trouble and more profit to build a NAT box without 6to4. >> >> >>>> Look what you have done: not only we have more NATv4 than ever, >>>> but now we also have NAT46, NAT64, NAT464...whatever and all of >>>> these with heavy ALG layers to make it more palatable. >> >>> I think you give me far more "credit" than I'm due. >> >> Maybe, and I certainly deserve some "credit" myself; nevertheless >> some, >> (rather large) amount of some flavor of NAT was unavoidable and I >> still >> believe that it would have been more productive to accept that fact >> instead of trying to get rid of any kind of any NAT altogether. >> >> >> >>> Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> in some sense the real guilty party in the IPv6 choice is the IETF >>> at large, the ordinary members - for accepting what was basically >> 'IPv4 >>> with a few more bits', instead of a fundamentally revised >>> architecture >>> that would provided real benefits in the form of major new >> capabilities >>> (e.g. separation of location and identity), thereby giving actual >>> operational incentives to drive migration. >> >> Problem is that IPv6 is much more than IPv4 with more bits. Please >> note >> that this is not a "I told you so" post; I would certainly have >> opposed >> what I will suggest below. >> >> In the end though, we would be better off now if we had gone the road >> "it's all the same just pad some extra zeroes" instead of this >> grandiose >> solve-it-all almost-perfect protocol we all dreamed of. >> >> As of ID/LOC separation, the sad truth is that we both tried, and we >> both failed. And we're not the only ones or the first ones or the last >> ones to try either. >> >> Our collective failure is that we have launched a protocol with "to be >> delivered soon" advanced features that unfortunately have proved to be >> impossible to deliver. Such as, {cough} PA-based multihoming. >> >> Now, what we have on our hands is a mess with a protocol in state of >> "non-deployment" that is not advanced enough to justify a large scale >> deployment (especially with Moore's law still going), but WAY more >> costly to deploy than a dumb "just more bits" upgrade. >> >> Michel. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf