[118500] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Oct 22 16:24:57 2009
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <023701ca534f$a1110750$e33315f0$@net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:24:03 -0700
To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Tony,
On Oct 22, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> The root of the argument I see in this entire thread is the assumption =
that
> 'what we have for IPv4 has *always* been there'.
Well, no. My reading is "what we have for IPv4 works, scales well, =
we're accustomed to it, and our provisioning systems are all built =
around it'.
> There is lots of finger
> pointing at the IETF for failure to define 15 years ago, what we have
> evolved as the every-day assumptions about the IPv4 network of today.
Well, no. My reading is that there is finger pointing at the IETF for =
ignoring and/or denying what network operators are specifying.
> The real issue here
> is that some people are so locked into one approach that they refuse =
to even
> consider that there might be an alternative way to achieve the same =
goal, or
> that the actual goal will change over time in the face of external
> requirements.=20
Actually, I think the issue is that there are folks who are running =
real, live businesses who don't really have the time (or interest) to =
experiment with alternative ways of doing things. They're getting =
pressure to deploy new stuff and are looking for technologies that are =
the quickest, easiest, requires the least retraining, retooling, =
redeployment, etc. They then get folks (most of which do not run real, =
live non-trivial networks) who say "use this new shiny toy!" and block =
efforts to hack the existing tools.
It's that last bit that's the problem.
But then again, I'm just guessing since I don't run a real, live =
non-trivial network...
Regards,
-drc
