Re: IPv6 news

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote:
> > > The operational community needs to reach consensus on what its
> > > priorities are.  We fought the CIDR wars to keep the routing
> > > subsystem working and the operational community were the primary
> > > backers of that.  To not support scalable multihoming is to reverse
> > > that position entirely.
> >
> > CIDR didn't have the big disadvantages to operators (at least non that
> > I can identify, not having personally lived thru the CIDR migration).
>
>
> No.  It had big disadvantages to the end users.  We asked them to
> suck it up in the name of having a scalable Internet.  Now that we
> are proposing a technology to continue to help the providers scale,
> but that has disadvantages to the providers, we're seeing that the
> providers are not willing to sacrifice.  Extremely disappointing.

I don't want to speak for Daniel, nor other operators really, but a
solution that doesn't allow an operator to traffic engineer internally or
externally is just not workable. For the same reasons quoted in your other
messages to me: "Increased reliance on the Internet"

If the network isn't reliable due to suboptimal routing issues it can't
survive :(

> condemning the result.  The provider community has been well served
> by the IETF over the years and shim6 deserves at least a full and
> reasoned hearing before you throw the baby out with the bath-water.

agreed, but it doesn't seem that, until recently atleast, there was much
operator participation. Hopefully that's changing for the better :)