[142757] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Jul 12 17:22:34 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <D52ED72A-31FE-49AA-9053-0284EC0835D4@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:21:11 -0700
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.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 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
Unless of course the large providers get their shared transition space =
in which case all 6to4 behind it will break in a really ugly way, pretty =
much exactly like in the mobile operator in question.=20
The goal of 6to4 to historic was not to encourage the outcome described, =
it was to take having 6to4 as a default method of any kind off the table =
going into the future. If mature adults want to use it great, but =
conformance tests shouldn't require it, CPE shouldn't it on just because =
what they think they have a is a public IP with not filtering and hosts =
shouldn't use it unless told to do so..
> 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.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>> 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
>=20
>=20
>=20
