[142767] 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 22:25:57 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <56E0FB8F-BB53-4DB0-829B-39DFBAB483E8@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:20:34 -0700
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.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 2:21 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>=20
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>>=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.
>=20
> 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
>=20
Actually, if those same providers run 6to4 gateways/routers on their =
networks
in that shared transition space with public IPv6 addresses on the =
exterior,
it would not break at all.
As I said, the resolution to the 6to4 problems described is to run MORE, =
not
less 6to4 gateways.
> 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..
>=20
I have no problem with saying 6to4 should not be enabled by default. =
However,
that doesn't change the fact that the best way to resolve things given =
current shipping
software and hardware is to deploy 6to4 gateways in the appropriate =
places.
Owen
>> 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
