Mark Smith wrote:
The fundamental end-users of the IETF technology is the world and it's
population. Network operators and administrators aren't the end-users
of networks, just like mechanics aren't the end-users of cars. Cars are
built to best suit the needs of the people who use them, not the people
who fix them.
So what's best for the IETF's end-users? Simplicity, because it's
cheaper to buy, to configure and to fix. Universal fixed length
interface IDs are simpler.
Actually, to follow your analogy, Interface Identifiers are an
under-the-hood "thingie".
They are not a user-serviceable part.
Simplicity does *not* involve users configuring IIs. It goes without
saying, then,
that autoconf (a use function) is the thing to look at.
If autoconf works, then *how* it works, and *what* it uses for II, is
actually unimportant,
*to the user*. It has to *just work*.
(Network operators are generally more like dealers than mechanics, with
their knowledge
and relationship with manufacturers. With all the good and bad that goes
with that analogy.
But, that is unimportant to the central argument, which is why this is
parenthesized.)
(BTW - I have yet to see a car built solely or even partially for the
needs of the people.
Example of how cars are *not* made to user's needs:. "options" vs
"options packages".)
The IETF seems to want to act like a design house, or so it seems for IPv6.
In some regards, it would better serve end-users, by acting like the
NTSB or NHTSA or DMV or EPA,
or some combination thereof.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
