[142754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 12 15:57:03 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGT1vsd4_ghgoq86YT6Ct-0-BNjrKHHJ98bFsXo1GvTBow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:53:42 -0700
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> =
wrote:
>> Leo,
>>=20
>> Maybe we can fix this by:
>>=20
>> a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
>> b) deciding which issues interest them
>> c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing =
working groups
>>=20
>> To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging =
by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
>>=20
>> Comments?
>>=20
>=20
> There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
>=20
> Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4 =
historic.
>=20
> Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network
> operators largely supported. Since the IETF failed to make progress
> operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA
> over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)
>=20
Those are all REALLY bad ideas. Speaking as an operator, the best thing =
you
can do to alleviate the problems with 6to4 is operate more, not less =
6to4
relays.
Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as likely =
that your
AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =
connectivity
with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that you're
sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe the
6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really help
anyway.
> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
> customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have thumb
> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
>=20
I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them does =
much
more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you proposed
above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more customer
issues rather than reduce them.
Owen
> Cameron
>=20
>=20
>> Ron
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 =
broken?)
>>=20
>> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Jeroen =
Massar wrote:
>>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists
>>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are =
already doing.
>>=20
>> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.
>>=20
>> 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 does =
not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, and =
can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
