On Apr 16, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for
someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity.
Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable
multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own
dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within
the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the
taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being
rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the
big picture, is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.
Thank you for believing my opposition of your ideas is simply because
I "lack a view of the big picture". Note that it is entirely
possible I believe the reverse to be true. Or perhaps you see a big
picture, and I just see a bigger one.
However, I probably won't lose my cool since, as I stated before, the
overwhelming majority of people who run the Internet seem to see my
"bigger" picture.
Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground"
appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so
radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the
IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem,
but it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not
anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many
things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something.
But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around
for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if
not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4
practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you
think all of them were wrong?
Yes.
And so does essentially everyone else who runs an Internet backbone.
These are some of the "best and brightest" in the world, and most of
them have been around for .. well, 'forever' in Internet terms.
But decision such as these really shouldn't be decided simply because
someone has been doing this longer.
I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the
past. But I would urge you to stick to those,
Stay tuned.
I'll try. But honestly, reading the same arguments over and over
gets tiresome, especially when so many well-qualified people have
explained the opposing PoV so well.
Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical arguments
are important, but they are only part of the decision process.
People (like me) have explained that the Internet is a business, and
in addition to being .. technically unsavory to many people, shim6 is
simply not viable in a business setting. Neither backbone operators
(vendors) nor end users (customers) are warming to the idea. Just
the opposite. (At least in general, the one-in-a-million end user
with DSL and cable who likes the idea 'cause he can't figure out how
to spell "B-G-P" or doesn't want to pay for it is irrelevant.)
So how do you get a technology widely accepted when the majority of
people involved do not think it is the best technical solution? When
the majority of vendors supposed to implement it will not do so for
technical -and- business reasons. When the majority of end users who
are supposed to buy the service will not?
Okie, trick question. :) You don't.
--
TTFN,
patrick
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
