On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@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