Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 9/14/21 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com 
> > <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > > 8+8 came *MUCH* later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime 
> > > time.  The reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP 
> > > and ILNP.  Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants. And there 
> > > certainly were poor design decisions in IPv6, bundling IPsec being 
> > > one.  But the idea that operators were ignored?  Feh.
> > I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but I find the notion 
> > that operators were ignored pretty preposterous too. There was a 
> > significant amount of bleed over between the two as I recall from 
> > going to Interop's. What incentive do vendors have to ignore their 
> > customers? Vendors have incentive to listen to customer requirements 
> > and abstract them to take into account things can't see on the 
> > outside, but to actually give the finger to them? And given how small 
> > the internet community was back while this was happening, I find it 
> > even more unlikely.
>
> You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing 
> enough information to the community to get the negative feedback their 
> solution so richly deserves. At that point, they have rather strong 
> incentives to push for the IETF adopting their solution over customer 
> objections because of entrenched code-base and a desire not to go back 
> and explain to management that the idea they’ve been working on for 
> the last 6 months is stillborn.
But we're talking almost 30 years ago when the internet was tiny. And 
it's not like operators were some fount of experience and wisdom back 
then: everybody was making it up along the way including operators which 
barely even existed back then. I mean, we're talking about the netcom 
days here. That's why this stinks of revisionist history to me.

Mike