Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

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

Dear Colleagues:

0)    I would like to summarize this thread of discussion with the 
following:

1)    It has been well-known in democracy that too much emphasis on 
"majority consensus" may not be really good for the intended goal. For 
example, if the general opinions in the ancient time prevailed and the 
objectors prosecuted, we probably are still living in a world of 
believing that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth! 
Science and technology make advances due to a few stubborn and forward 
looking hard workers, not by popular wisdom.

2)    No one should be "defending" the decision of going to IPv6 three 
decades ago. There is no need to, because it was based on the best 
information and knowledge at that time. Now, after two decades of 
"experimenting", we have enough data to analyze and a lot of 
alternatives to review. There is nothing improper to revise the current 
Internet course that was set by engineers of at least two generations ago.

3)    It puzzles me deeply that the voices of the "Internet-way 
followers" these days have been so loud. What happened to the rebellion 
behaviors of restless young generations? Or, such voices come from those 
who made the choice three decades ago and refuse to update?

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-31 11:20)



On 2022-03-31 08:35, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
> IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that:
>
> - Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC)
> - Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big additional cost to implement Enhanced Headers
> - Encryption would never have a small enough cost to make it mandatory
> - Router would be available in every smallest thing that makes distributed address acquisition redundant (hi SLAAC)
>
> We should be fair - it was not possible to guess.
>
> Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM
> To: Tom Beecher<beecher () beecher cc>
> Cc: NANOG<nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
> Tom Beecher wrote:
> >      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/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX
> > yAUA/
> As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus.
>
> To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related 
> stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would 
> achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus.
>
> Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality 
> field.
>
> > He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs
> > to get worked on , it will be worked on,
> IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
>
> > but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that
> > became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
> IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same problem. Which could be a solution to the 
> problem, but only if the replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement hasnt happened, we still 
> are dealing with the problem.
>
> The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time.
> That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a
> decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue
> doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong and harmful.
>
> Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash work on one protocol because of the existence of 
> another one that is preferred by the quashers?
>
> Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to 
> extend or at the very least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig the system for their 
> preferred outcome.
>
> > Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
> I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2 resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of 
> choice of inadequate interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by users, not the pmtud, not the 
> fragmentation, and many other warts. I dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes.
>
> I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered.
>
> The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion has not been alleviated. For many years now and 
> who knows how much longer.
>
> > But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I
> > don't like the solution that they chose."
> The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on
> IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same.
>
> When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse.
>
> What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is that they refuse to admit it and learn from their 
> mistakes.
>
> Joe
>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com  
> > <mailto:jmaimon () jmaimon com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >      Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >
> >      >
> >      > 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.
> Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority.
>
> Joe



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