Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:51:12 +0100

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:47:31PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
      IETF). Now, while many in the IETF argue that there is no
      such thing as an "operator community", I personally see
      it differently, and there are many of us who think that
      operator input is sorely missing from the IETF process.

The problem with IETF and IPv6 is from my perspective, that operator
input is being rejected as unreasonable or just ignored (shim6). I've
stopped wasting time trying to bring operator's views/points across.
It's not welcome if it doesn't fit already existing views within IETF
regarding IPv6. I know that a lot of active IPv6 folks think the same
but hesitate to communicate that openly.

      That is one of the reasons we did the NANOG 35 IPv6
      multihoming BOF (and are doing the same at the upcoming
      apricot meeting).  

Which is a good thing. But still, many IETF folks deny the fact that
they constantly hear that things like shim6 is NOT what the ops folks
(the folks that have to actually work with the stuff IETF brings
forward) are looking for. And we know that it doesn't. It can't.
There is no way to do traffic engineering with any shim6-like system
like one can do with BGP as shim6 is a completely host-centric solution.
It has no clue about upstream/downstream/peering, ASses etc. Those
things that actually make topology and economics. That's aside all the
other administrative nightmares associated.

      So (and again, not speaking for the IAB), my perspective
      is that we really need your insight and perspectives,
      more generally, your help in solving some of the
      difficult problems before us (a viable routing and
      addressing architecture for IPv6 comes to mind). 

I firmly believe that this train for IPv6 is long gone. We should go
forward with IPv6 using the legacy routing architecture and start NOW
working on a complete real re-vamp with a PROPER locator/identifier
split - not an ugly hack ontop of the traditional IPv4/IPv6 like shim6
which doesn't deliver what ops folks need.

Nevertheless, I really welcome IAB's efforts in the matter.

Best regards,

CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr () IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]