Subject: Re: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:59:00 -0700

Michel Py wrote:
> I will remind you that the official IETF position is that IPv6 is in
> production, which led to the creation of the v6ops WG. IPv6 is no longer
> a prototype we can tinker with. Or maybe you recommend a [graceful]
> restart?

We as an organization have to be careful to not be so ossified that we 
don't learn from our mistakes.  In this case, the organization feels 
that we made a mistake (this is not an invitation to argue the point 
again, but a statement of facts as I see it).  As a matter of procedure, 
the document we are talking about is the addressing architecture, which 
is now in its second round as a Proposed Standard.  It might as well go 
through a third round if we haven't gotten it right (and then a fourth 
if necessary).

I am not suggesting at this time that IPv6 be completely torn up and 
started from scratch.  What I am saying is that we have a working IPv4 
Internet to fall back on when we find flaws in v6.  Furthermore, let's 
not pretend that v6 is either so entrenched that we can make no changes 
or so fragile that we can make no changes.[*]

Fred's proposal, it seems to me, takes the WG consensus and starts to do 
the rational thing, which is to lay out usage scenarios that need to be 
addressed in the solution space.  I think he does need to stay in the 
requirements space a bit more by allowing for the possibility of other 
than scoped addresses (and thus my one comment about the draft), but in 
general his approach seems to me to be correct.

Finally, let me make a comment about the appeal.  I've been involved 
with working groups where they fragmented on different solutions and 
appeals were threatened and nasty names were used.  The result were 
delays in implementation and deployment.  Is that what you want?  Or 
conversely, is it possible for you to take the consensus and build a 
working operating model with it?

Eliot

[*] By the way, IPv4 didn't get to be so prevalent without a lot of pain 
and a lot of trial and error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:23:28 -0700 (PDT)

% Eliot,
% 
% >> Michel Py wrote:
% >> We don't throw away a published standard with running code
% >> from multiple vendors in exchange for the promise that
% >> _maybe_ someone will be able to produce a replacement that
% >> meets the requirements.
% 
% > Eliot Lear wrote:
% > It is true that we should not make standards where there is no
% > running code.  However, Running code != good practices or even
% > good ideas.  And we do have running code (with both good and
% > bad ideas) for now while we figure out this question- it's
% > called IPv4.
% 
% I will remind you that the official IETF position is that IPv6 is in
% production, which led to the creation of the v6ops WG. IPv6 is no longer
% a prototype we can tinker with. Or maybe you recommend a gracious
% restart?
% 
% Michel.

	what an odd point of view.  if, as is asserted, the IPv6 
	is "production" then why are we still seeing drafts
	changing the address format?

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:08:31 +0700

Date:        Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
    From:        Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 	what an odd point of view.  if, as is asserted, the IPv6 
  | 	is "production" then why are we still seeing drafts
  | 	changing the address format?

That would be an odd definition of "production" - if that were how
it were defined, then IPv4 couldn't have been "production" in 1989
when class D addresses were defined (RFC1112) and the IPv4 address
format thus altered.

Aside from that, anyone can submit drafts about anything, anytime.
Even a WG accepting a draft (forwarding it to the IESG) changes nothing.
The IETF must agree to accept the change before any alterations happen,
and none of that has occurred here.

kre