[142647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jul 11 17:16:54 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPWAtbJSqR9cajRMn=1jXA8iwoGa+Q45KPf-uwXxyR9MKksm5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:14 -0700
To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
>> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. If
>> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development
>> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response,
>> which in many cases is right. Sometimes you just have to play with
>> something before you worry about the operational details. It also
>
> I really don't understand why that is right / good. People get
> personally invested in their project / spec, and not only that, vendor
> people get their company's time and money invested in
> proof-of-concept. The longer something goes on with what may be
> serious design flaws, the harder it is to get them fixed, simply
> because of momentum.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we could change the way that next-header works
> in IPv6 now? Or get rid of SLAAC and erase the RFCs recommending /80
> and /64 from history?
>
No... I like SLAAC and find it useful in a number of places. What's wrong
with /64? Yes, we need better DOS protection in switches and routers
to accommodate some of the realities of those decisions, but, that's not
to say that SLAAC or /64s are bad. They're fine ideas with proper
protections.
I'm not sure about the /80 reference as I haven't encountered that
recommendation outside of some perverse ideas about point-to-point
links.
Owen
