amen! :) On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote: > < rant > > > the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at > listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of > ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and > cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly, > flip a switch or two, and get 96 more bits no magic. 15 years later, > dhcp is still a cf, i have to run a second server (why the hell does > isc not merge them?), i can not use it for finding my gateway or vrrp > exit, ... at least we got rid of the tla/nla classful insanity. but > u/g? puhleeze. > > at ripe/dublin, olaf gave a really nice but somewhat glib talk about > technology adoption, using dnssec and ipv6 as the positive examples. as > some curmudgeonly schmuck pointed out at the mic, dnssec is forward > compatible and there are no alternatives, so it is being adopted despite > its complexity and warts. ipv6 is not forward compatible, we put > unnecessary obstacles in the deployment path, and there are > alternatives. d o o m. > > if we had wanted ipng deployed, we would have done everything we could > to make it simple and easy for net-ops and end users to turn it on. > instead, we made it complex and hard and then blame everyone else for > not instantly adopting it en masse. the ietf did not listen to or > consider the customer. this is fatal. and the arrogance is taking what > is left of the e2e internet down the drain with it. </rant> > > randy