Subject: "IETF servers aren't for testing"

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 09:44:27 +0200

Hi,

Yesterday in the plenary in response to a request for making the IETF  
servers IPv6-capable, I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF  
servers for testing.

In and of itself I fully agree with that statement. However, the  
assumption that IPv6 is an experimental protocol and enabling it on  
the various IETF servers should be considered "testing" isn't exactly  
a glowing endorsement of 10 years of IETF work.

It sounds distasteful, but we should really be eating your own dog food.

Limiting myself to the www.ietf.org webservers (yes, this address  
points to two different hosts) it appears this site runs on:

Server: Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat)
Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.0.40 OpenSSL/ 
0.9.7a

Even though these Apache versions are 2 - 3 years old (with many  
vulnerabilities found and fixed in the mean time), they're fully  
capable of supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around  
the same age.

It would be a nice way to mark 7 years of RFC 2460 (or 10 years of  
RFC 1883, both were published in december) and the closing of the  
IPv6 wg with addition of IPv6 to at least the IETF WWW servers.

(BTW a big "yuck" for being behind two-faced DNS here at the IETF  
meeting venue.)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:11:19 -0400 (EDT)

> servers IPv6-capable, I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF

What testing?  Production addresses have been routing for some time now.

> capable of supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around

Agreed.  It is one kernel option change and a recompile away from
supporting v6, as long as packets are properly routed to it upstream,
which is also trivial.

> (BTW a big "yuck" for being behind two-faced DNS here at the IETF

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:54:22 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> In and of itself I fully agree with that statement. However, the assumption 
> that IPv6 is an experimental protocol and enabling it on the various IETF 
> servers should be considered "testing" isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of 
> 10 years of IETF work.
>

It seems reasonable to make this suggestion to the IASA since the 
managemnt of that function is devolving to them. and then be patient since 
there are a number of transition related balls are all in the air at the 
same time.

> Limiting myself to the www.ietf.org webservers (yes, this address points to 
> two different hosts) it appears this site runs on:
>
> Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.0.40 OpenSSL/0.9.7a
>
> vulnerabilities found and fixed in the mean time), they're fully capable of 
> supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around the same age.
>
> It would be a nice way to mark 7 years of RFC 2460 (or 10 years of RFC 1883, 
> both were published in december) and the closing of the IPv6 wg with addition 
> of IPv6 to at least the IETF WWW servers.
>
> (BTW a big "yuck" for being behind two-faced DNS here at the IETF meeting 
> venue.)
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked]
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:20:27 +0200

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.0.40 OpenSSL/ 0.9.7a

www1.ietf.org @ cnri/reston.va.us/cogent + www2.ietf.org @ foretec/uunet

This is done for failover/bombproof etc reasons, not the perfect thing
to do but that will change one day with HIP/shim6/sctp/lot of other hard
work that many people are doing.

> capable of supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around  the
> same age.

The problem here seems to be more the fact that, in the US, getting IPv6
connectivity can be quite tiresome. Cogent, the current IPv4 upstream,
doesn't do IPv6 (they have 2001:500:2::/48) for instance. UUnet could
maybe do IPv6. Maybe the secretariat would wants to try out some tunnels?

In any case http://www.ietf.org.sixxs.org also works, though it might
indeed be nice if this trick was automatic without appending the domain.

Greets,
 Jeroen

PS: I assume RedHat backports fixes so that 2.0.40 actually is a 2.0.53
but with a different version number...
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:19:18 +0200

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 09:44, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> ... I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF servers for testing.
> 
> In and of itself I fully agree with that statement. 

I'd go farther.  I strongly disagree.

While the availability and stability of the IETF infrastructure is
important, an engineering organization which declines to "eat its own
dog food" sends a message about its suitability for widespread
deployment.

							- Bill

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:26:04 +0300

>dog food" sends a message about its suitability for widespread
Agreed.

--Jari

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:59:18 -0400

> dog food" sends a message about its suitability for widespread

The phrase is an anecdotal reference, where the executives of a dog food
company said they knew the product tasted good because they tried it
themselves. It's a good analogy.

Getting hung up on the "dog food" part of the analogy misses the whole
point of the anecdote.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Richard Irving <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:15:48 -0500

>Getting hung up on the "dog food" part of the analogy misses the whole
<segway>
 Great analogy, but one point to note, executives really do have a 
tasting party
with a sample of the dog food, from each shift.

  I did a project with M&M Mars Inc., who own and operate Kal Kan.

   Apparently, the product must be edible by humans, as what other thing 
than
a dog is down there on the floor... and likes to eat ?

 Answer:  Babies.
</segway>
(not wanting to detract from the point.....)

---

From: Kevin Loch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:26:57 -0400

> maybe do IPv6. Maybe the secretariat would wants to try out some tunnels?

If connectivity means a colocated server with IPv4 and IPv6 service,
that can easially be found in the US.  Finding an IPv6 ISP POP in
an arbitrary local town is quite a bit more difficult.

If these are just dedicated/colocated servers and IPv6 is a requirement,
move them to a hosting company that supports IPv6. If you are not
willing to take your business elsewhere then why should your current
hosts offer it?

- Kevin

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:26:09 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Kevin Loch wrote:

a simple dual stack router upstream or hrizontally placed from the host in
question solves the problem.  let me know if my assistence is necessary.
i will build one remotely if necessary.

Scott

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:51:19 +0200

I will say even more. Just change to another ISP if you actual one can't
provide some kind of IPv6. This is the business case for IPv6 today,
offering good support to what the customer requires -> simply be up-to-date
with the technology trends.

They have no way to say that is expensive, difficult or whatever. There are
lots of choices which are valid for this situation (ordered by preference,
but all them will work at least as a temporary solution):

1) Ask them to upgrade their core network and access network. This means for
the ISP having at least one upstream provider providing native IPv6 service
(tunneled will also work in the worst case).
2) Ask them to upgrade only the core network and provide a transition
mechanism for the access (probably a configured tunnel will make it in this
case when not too many customers ask for it).
3) Ask them to just install a specific router to terminate both the tunnel
to the upstream provider and also towards the customers. This is in case the
current network really don't support an upgrade to IPv6 (which I tend to see
as just one excuse).

The worst case is that if you really can't find any ISP in the area to offer
the service, or the cost of moving to a new provider is too high, then find
a tunnel broker or configured tunnel which is not too far away. Today this
will come for free with lots of choices.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Kevin Loch <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:26:57 -0400
> Para: IETF General Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing"
> 
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 

************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:10:49 -0700 (PDT)

Could this perhaps be an opportunity for the operations community (read
NANOG) to work with the standards community (read IETF)?

Maybe they could even, gasp, meet jointly or nearby in time/place...?

I know, I know, radical thinking but...

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:25:50 +0200

Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA, and 
that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via 
IPv4", I think it is a very reasonable idea for the IETF Administrative 
Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what they 
would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract to "IPv4 
and IPv6".

At the moment, remember, the IETF's webservers are provided by a company 
that is under no formal obligation to do anything requested by the IETF 
community; they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue 
not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they think 
that some of the other things we have asked them to do take priority.

I think IPv6 can wait until we have the formalities straight.

                       Harald

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:17:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> community;

That is a fundamental imbalance in the order of things.

> they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue

With all due respect, thats bu%^sh$t.  The IETF needs no outside provider
to provided the desired level of connectivity.  I have had redundant /48's
routed to my internal networks for almost 2 years, both 6bone addressing
and production addresses, and my upstream bandwidth providers haven't even
heard of v6.  Thurn on the tunnel and get it over with, sans the
beauracracy that is crippling this organization.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:43:13 +0200

Thanks for confirming that you have totally missed what the IASA process 
was all about.

This community has a number of people who wish to say how things need to be 
done - whether it is meeting location, IPv6 or cookies during the breaks - 
while absolutely refusing to spend any thought cycles whatsoever trying to 
find out how this organization is actually put together, who will have to 
make the decisions to implement their wishes, and who those people are 
accountable to.

You have thoroughly confirmed that you are among that group.

                        Harald

--On lørdag, august 06, 2005 13:17:47 -0400 shogunx 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA,
>> and that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via
>> Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what
>> they would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract
>> to "IPv4 and IPv6".
>>
>> not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they
>> think that some of the other things we have asked them to do take
>> priority.
>>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:53:16 +0200

Right, but I will say that if the reply from the service provider is
something else than the cost of upgrading the router to a new firmware
version, then the IAD and this community has the obligation to look for an
alternative provider !

Providing IPv6 in addition to IPv4 should not be done at any extra charge.

At a risk to be blamed, I have the obligation to say that if an ISP
(Internet Service Provider) today doesn't provide IPv6 (or at least has
clear and short term plans for it), then has lost the right to be called ISP
and may need to consider closing down the business. Internet is TODAY IPv6
and IPv4.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:25:50 +0200
> Para: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>, IETF General Discussion
> Mailing List <[email-masked]>

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT)

> Thanks for confirming that you have totally missed what the IASA process

Thank you for confirming that the IETF has become totally mired in
beuracratic waste.

> done - whether it is meeting location, IPv6 or cookies during the breaks -

Re: ipv6... the goal is connectivity, not the source or methodology
of such.  a workable solution is present TODAY.

Re: cookies during breaks... seems like i remember hearing you spout off
at a pleanary a few years ago that $50,000 or so was spent on cookies
because "I like cookies."  Good waste of funds that could be made
productive to suit your personal desires.  Where I am from we call that
abuse of power.

Re: meeting locations... one can only light up minneapolis so many times.

Harald, you are not the dictator of the IETF.  The community speaks for
itself, with or (hopefully) without you.  Jon Postel is laughing at you
from his grave.

> find out how this organization is actually put together,

Hmm... IASA turns up exactly nothing of relavence on google, which in
effect makes its relavence to this discussion, or the IETF, exactly...
none.

> who will have to

And you have confirmed your self serving attitute.  Go have yourself
another mocha frappe crappe latte with extra cookies and indulge in a few
more personal attacks on those of us actually trying to make progress
before the sun goes supernova.  You can't win on the technical argument so
you choose a completely irrelavent personal attack.  Love your hair, hope
you win, NEXT!

Scott

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:13:20 +0200

Hi all,

Without entering in the discussion of anyone being right or wrong, I will
like to ask that this thread, which I don't think will bring us to anything
good, is discontinued unless we are going to talk about the real initial
subject.

A discussion about IPv6 being experimental or not, could be productive in my
opinion, but if we follow the appropriate behavior in the list.

So far, if is a test or not using it at the IETF servers is a good example,
but actually I think is clear that this will only happen once the contract
with the organization holding the secretariat is fixed, as Brian suggested
in the plenary. I'm sure the IAD will take in consideration our inputs on
this for the new contract.

Regards,
Jordi, acting as "sergeant at arms"

> De: shogunx <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>, IETF General Discussion Mailing
> List <[email-masked]>

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:17:06 -0400 (EDT)

> good, is discontinued unless we are going to talk about the real initial

I thought the experimental stage was concluded with the issuance of 2001::
addresses, marked "production," as opposed to 3ffe:: addresses, which were
for experimental 6bone "testing purposes.

Thanks Jordi,
Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:13:22 +0200

> itself, with or (hopefully) without you.  Jon Postel is laughing at you

It seems that you missed the fact that I stepped down as IETF chair in 
March. I'm now speaking as a member of the community.

>> while absolutely refusing to spend any thought cycles whatsoever trying
>> to find out how this organization is actually put together,
>

It seems that you missed the publication of BCP 101, RFC 4071, which 
explains exactly what the IASA is.

Once you say something that indicates that you have done anything at all to 
understand the organization you claim to be working in, I might find a 
reason to engage in debate with you again.

                    Harald

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:57:08 -0400 (EDT)

I will defer to Jordi's post on this matter.  Personal attacks are not
useful, so I will not dignify your response by bothering to respond to its
content.

Yawn.  When the IETF moves from the business of beauracracy, and back to
the business of technology, reading RFC's may again be worth putting time
into.  It amazes me that several committees are now necessary to perform
the function a few individuals used to readily handle in their spare time.
Until then, I'll be writing code.

Scott

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:04:36 +0200

Yes and not ... Real large scale deployment trials only started in
2001-2002, and it was already using production space. Then we had commercial
deployment, at that time mainly in Asia Pacific and Europe.

I will say that IPv6 experimental stage was over around 2002-2003, specially
looking at vendors support. Of course, this always depend on "your own
hands-on experience" ;-)

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:17:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:06:59 +0200

There are plans to do "something" already during next NANOG/ARIN meeting,
but not completely fixed yet.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Para: Kevin Loch <[email-masked]>
> CC: IETF General Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 03:12:43 +0200

>  looking at vendors support. Of course, this always depend on "your own

Dear Jordi,
There could be many criteria to say IPv6 is operational. Mine is that at 
this (st)age of IPv6 deployment a SME (we absolutely need them to push and 
pay for IPv6 acceptance) should be able to:
- subscribe an IPv6/IPv4 ADSL access
- put a bootable CD in a new machine with a Wi-Fi router plugged on the 
ADSL line
- answer a few well documented questions
- and get its server running under Apache, with a xxxmail working as pop, 
smtp, mailing list and anti-spam, their named operational and reasonable 
anti-virus, firewall, network management, log reporting tool, 
backup/restore, security alarm solutions being in operation and full Perl 
and PHP support for network scripts being loaded.

I have the ADSL line and IPv6/IPv4 address for three months. I am still 
looking for a trustable "dog food" cann: an ISO to dowload, CD to Fedex, a 
compact nomad version on a bootable USB key? May be then the IETF could a 
copy: not to test it, but to show it can be used. I know you made a lot of 
practical efforts: did you come accross of such a dog foot? I would love to 
test!
jfc

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:08:29 -0400 (EDT)

10-4

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:15:09 -0400 (EDT)

> - put a bootable CD in a new machine with a Wi-Fi router plugged on the

I've got a dualstack router livecd under development, at the request of
the (showing signs of life) ISTF and ISOC board, for use in 3rd world
deployment.  Time is limited though, as I am on the road at the moment.
The solution is complete, I have deployed it several times, but always in
the form of "set up a basic debian system with v4 connectivity, and I'll
ssh in and do up a dual stack router."  It will take me a bit to finish
the distro...

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:36:14 +0200

> I know, I know, radical thinking but...

some of us have thought of the idea of a 10-day NANOG+IETF bash and 
shuddered..... the delegates might like it, but their spouses might not...

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 04:52:34 -0500

Well, actually, there's one other point ...

IEEE 802 is meeting in Vancouver the week after IETF 64, so there will 
be double-heading whether we ever try to hook up with NANOG (or the 
moral equivalent of NANOG), and

I don't think I've EVER seen as many spouses at an IETF as I did last 
week, and I KNOW I've never seen as many children at an IETF. I ran 
into Dave and Susan Meyer at a Cafe BoF near the Eiffel Tower on 
Friday afternoon, and I'm thinking the spouses aren't going to be 
nearly the problem we thought previously...

So, I think doubling up would be a lot more fatal for delegates than 
for spouses/family members. Aaron's family ditched us like a hot rock, 
and Aaron put a note on the IETF list looking for people to go play 
with wife and daughters this week, so I BET we can delegate this 
problem and have it solved :-)

OK, make that a couple of other points. The other is from my rave in 
Newtrk - we're making choices that are more attractive for standards 
professionals and less attractive for development engineers, and then 
wondering why we don't care as much about running code as we used to 
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg36822.html).

I really like the idea of closer working relationships with NOGs (and 
there are several to choose from, but that's another issue) - we need 
to figure out how to do that effectively, without accidentally turning 
IETF participantion into more of a full-time job for most people than 
it is now...

Spencer

From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>

> --On fredag, august 05, 2005 16:10:49 -0700 Ole Jacobsen 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:47:03 +0200

> dog food" sends a message about its suitability for widespread

Just one comment on this thread, if the sergeant at arms will allow
it.

The IAOC was in the room for the plenary, and the comment was noted.
And it needs to get on the IASA action list, after which it's an
operational question how soon it can happen and how much it costs.

     Brian