nanog mailing list archives
Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:44:45 -0400
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement. The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/ He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on, but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem. Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose." On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015. Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure. When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out. Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4 issues. In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process and should be struck from the record. I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas. OwenThis part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives. On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy. Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 29)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC Tom Beecher (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 20220326125.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 29)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Justin Streiner (Mar 27)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 27)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 29)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Joe Maimon (Mar 30)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Tom Beecher (Mar 30)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Joe Maimon (Mar 30)
- RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Mar 31)
- RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Matthew Petach (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Joe Maimon (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 31)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Joe Maimon (Mar 31)