Keep your head in the sand. Efforts towards convergence to a post mortem are rarely fast and rarely painless. -----Original Message----- From: Richard L. Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@xxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:05 PM To: Michel Py Cc: Keith Moore; Noel Chiappa; ietf@xxxxxxxx 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