Re: CC: s to Non List Members (Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203171135.AYC

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Greg:

1)    " ... The IETF has changed its position on several (IMO) key 
issues during its existence. ...  ":    Well said! In fact, I believe 
(from one of the APNIC blogs recounting the Internet history) that 
CG-NAT was one of those "bastards" who turned to be accepted as a prince 
whom everyone is defending him now, without realizing that an 
enhancement is at the front door steps again.

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-17 11:50)


------------------------------
NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19


Message: 34
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:32:45 -0700
From: Greg Skinner<gregskinner0 () icloud com>
To: Tom Beecher<beecher () beecher cc>
Cc:bzs () theworld com, North American Network Operators' Group
        <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re:
        202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
Message-ID:<109DB49C-2471-4FE2-AC68-E4EEAFE1C886 () icloud com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I have qualms about these drafts also.  However, even if the IETF does not move forward with any of them (not even to 
adopt them as WG items), that doesn?t mean they never will.  Times change.  Circumstances change.  The IETF has changed 
its position on several (IMO) key issues during its existence.  Perhaps this will be one of those times.

Incidentally, if you take a look at this post from Theodore 
Ts?o<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IGKkL8IM1IptV4Q3Z3pko6OC1Xs/>   he?s pretty much saying the same thing that 
Barry Shein said, that the IETF isn?t as good at policy as it is in producing protocol standards.  (The thread it?s from started 
from a response to the publication of RFC2008<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2008.txt>  as a Best Current Practice, in 
spite of ?vigorous opposition?.)

The other thing I wanted to say is for anyone who doesn?t know a lot about the IETF workings, the contributions of some 
of the authors of the Schoen drafts are recognized and respected in the IETF Transport Area.  They?re not new to this 
stuff.  They have ?clue?.  They do due diligence.  They produce running code, and (IMO) are seeking rough consensus.  I 
believe that in the IETF of, say, a quarter century ago, their drafts would have progressed further through the 
standards process.  For various reasons, today?s IETF is different, but could still change its minds.  I believe the 
authors of the Schoen drafts are capable of drumming up support for their ideas even if they don?t (immediately) become 
IETF drafts, and that the IETF might change its position on their ideas, as a result of such support.

?gregbo

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 5:28 AM, Tom Beecher<beecher () beecher cc>  wrote:
>
> No quibble about the discussion happening on a NOG list, not at all.
>
> But frankly unless the proposal is even starting to move forward in the IETF process such that a standards change is possible, 
> it's just noise. ( I don't predict that the draft being discussed ever gets that far anyways ; it has serious 
> deficiencies.)
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 6:53 PM Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog () nanog org  <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:
> I agree.  iMO, this 240/4 issue is another one of those tussles in 
> cyberspace<https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf>.   But I don?t fault IETF people or anyone 
> else who pursues technical solutions to these types of problems as long as they are open and honest about the limitations of 
> these solutions.
>
> Also, IMO, the value of having a discussion about this issue here (and other NOG forums) is to get the perspective of people 
> who (generally speaking) deal more immediately with the problems the broader ?online" population has with IETF-based 
> technology.
>
> ?gregbo
>
> > On Mar 8, 2022, at 9:25 PM,bzs () theworld com  <mailto:bzs () theworld com>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption
> > debates.
> >
> > Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore:
> >
> > The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design
> > protocols, packet formats, etc.
> >
> > But many of the major problems facing the internet are not, at their
> > core, engineering problems.
> >
> > They're in the realm of social, legal, marketing, politics, int'l
> > policy, governance, law enforcement, commerce, economics, sociology,
> > psychology, etc. which TBH as bright as many of the engineers et al
> > are these problems are way beyond their ken, occasional polymath
> > excepted.
> >
> > But first you have to admit you have a problem, and limitations.
> >
> > Shouting at the rafters about address space depletion etc while waving
> > RFCs may not quite do it.
> >
> > Similar can be said about spam, malware attacks, phishing, etc.
> >
> > Yet another cryptographic protocol probably won't save the day but as
> > the expression goes when all you have is a hammer the whole world
> > looks like a nail.
> >
> > --
> >         -Barry Shein
> >
> > Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com<http://theworld.com/>              |http://www.TheWorld.com  
> > <http://www.theworld.com/>
> > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> > The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility |*oo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220316/264c57a1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus