nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:40:05 +0200
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional, proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETFthere is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?
Well, all this discussion and the set of requirements are nothing new. Quite the contrary. Lots and lots of talking was done, but still multi6 resulted in shim6. Where should one gain hope? They were constantly beaten with 6D Maglites, what does it take to see the light? Most folks have given up argueing I guess. I myself certainly did, at least in open fora. But I have also to admit that I'm shocked how few folks have the balls (or is it lazyness?) to express their opinion on IPv6 multihoming in the public, on the established fora for that stuff. See the recent threads about IPv6 PI / multihoming on ARIN PPML and other policy-making mailing lists. Almost zero feedback from enterprise / SME folks. That of course makes it much easier... "see, noone really complains! we must be going down the right road!".
And looking at the IPv6 allocation lists, I see that some of the folks' employers involved in shim6 developement actually have got their own allocations (and even leak more-specifics in geopgraphic distinct locations for traffic engineering). Looks like they couldn't convice even their own IT folks that shim6 or anything else will fix their problem (feature wise and/or timeline wise).that is troubling, yes... 'hypocrisy' ?
Hm, perhaps more like OPP syndrome, no idea. You can very comfortably talk about ignoring requirements, when you have your own allocs in place, or know that you can easily pretend to be an ~ISP by sheer size of the company (you know, the "our IT department is the ISP for all other departments and spoke sites, and we have lots of them" standard trick). Frankly I don't have a clue what really lead the IETF to do the multi6 => shim6 move. Don't have any insight into the politics behind the curtains. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Marshall Eubanks (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 15)
- shim6 ... easy? bmanning (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)