Re: IPv6 Confusion

[Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>]

On 19/02/2009 07:27, David Conrad wrote:
> those requirements to be. Unfortunately, that's not what we have. We
> have network operators in their own little world, trying to keep the
> network running and protocol developers in their own little world,
> trying to come up with cool features that will make their protocols
> relevant, based on their own beliefs as to what is important or not.
> These two camps seem to intersect rarely.

Naah, it's worse than that.  It's an unholy triad of protocol developers, 
software developers and operators, each of which operates in their own 
playpen, and none of which actually communicate with anyone else.  While 
not wanting to stereotype things, some would say that the protocol 
developers think that the operators don't know crap about what's good for 
them, and that the three most important things in the world are 
correctness, committee approval and their own particular protocol.

On the other side are the operators, trying to build and maintain real 
world networks, and who when presented with the sort of trashy mess that we 
see with RA/DHCPv6, make decisions which makes sense for themselves at that 
particular time, even if it involves.  Being human, they spend considerable 
amounts of time frothing at the mouth at whoever thought, for example, that 
RA was a good idea in the first place, or that DHCPv6 should lack a 
default-route option.

Stuck in the middle are the developers.  The poor developers.  Despised 
equally by both sides: one the one hand for butchering these beautiful, 
elegant protocols and churning out bug-ridden heaps of trash;  on the other 
hand, for, well, butchering these bizarre, half-baked protocols and 
churning out bug-ridden heaps of trash.  Life truly sucks for them.

Sorry, did someone say that we all work in the communications industry?

Nick