Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica () juniper net> wrote:
> > > > > Leo,
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we can fix this by:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging by your comments, we don't do it nearly 
> > > > > enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments?
> > > >
> > > > There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
> > > >
> > > > Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4 historic.
> > > >
> > > > 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...)
> > > 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. 
>
> 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.

arin 2011-5 specfically cites numbering cpe in space as the justification for deployment.

the cpe therefore have to be natted and you are implying that you'll be natting the 6to4, overall I'd put that in the 
less desirable category as far as violating expectations go...

> As I said, the resolution to the 6to4 problems described is to run MORE, not
> less 6to4 gateways.

Are you advocating draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-02

> > 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..
>
> 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.

and we have http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02

The fact of the matter is more 6to4 relays is only an anodyne as is rejiggering the address selection priority, the 
pain may go down it won't go away.

> 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.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > > > Cameron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >           Ron
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----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?)
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly broken.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.