Subject: Comments about draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:50:49 -0800

For those who were not in the room this evening, my comments were that the
complaints on the list about the draft fall into a couple of broad
categories:

One class basically intends to tell people how to run their networks. The
IETF defines how the protocols work, not how individual networks are run. 

Another class basically ignores the reality that network managers will
deploy address space for local use, no matter what the IETF does. The IETF
can provide a place for those organizations to meet their local
requirements, or deal with the randomness that will result.

Unfortunately I had to leave at that point for a jury, so I do not know what
discussion happened related to Fred's presentation of the draft itself. One
comment I did have though was the delay of the milestone as presented by the
chairs due to comments seems inappropriate since neither Fred nor I know of
any outstanding issues. This document is detailing the reasons that
individual network managers use private address space. It really doesn't
matter if the IETF believes they are wrong, this is what they do and will
continue to do to meet their requirements. The only thing the IETF can do is
provide alternatives that are cheaper in each environment. Since consistency
plays a significant role in recurring operational costs, to achieve any
deployment, the various proposals suggesting that the IETF provide a pile of
different approaches for segments of the problem space will need to show
these network managers how such a collection is cheaper than the increased
training and generally higher clue factor of the operations staff needed to
run them.

Tony

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:50:27 -0800 (PST)

I cannot say which of Tony's points I agree on and which I still
might have some uncertainties. But, I will say that our document
presents Scenarios and Goals that no one seems to be disputing
as a service to the community and these will not go away. 
 
I will also say that I think it's time for us to get out of this holding
posture and move on, and that will be my only comment at this time.
 
Fred Templin
[email-masked]

Tony Hain <[email-masked]> wrote:
For those who were not in the room this evening, my comments were that the
complaints on the list about the draft fall into a couple of broad
categories:

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:26:23 -0500

> IETF defines how the protocols work, not how individual networks are 

I've responded to this in a separate message.

> deploy address space for local use, no matter what the IETF does.

you might be right, but our job is produce designs that actually work.  
what you are proposing is that we abandon that task, on the assumption 
that users will break what we do anyway.  if you feel that this effort 
is a waste of your time feel free to concentrate your energies in other 
directions, but don't expect us the rest of us to give up simply 
because of your speculation.

> One comment I did have though was the delay of the milestone as 
> presented by the
> any outstanding issues.

other than that the set of constraints you wish to impose are 
unworkable?

> This document is detailing the reasons that
> continue to do to meet their requirements.

this is just a re-expression of the myth that everything in IPv6 has to 
be done like it was done in IPv4.  managers can choose to use IPv6 or 
not based on whether they think IPv6 suits their needs.  but if they 
choose to use IPv6 and expect IPv6 to work well even though they are 
using IPv6 in a way that conflicts with its design, they're deluded.  
individuals and vendors who encourage such delusions are not doing 
their audiences a service.

> Since consistency plays a significant role in recurring operational 
> costs, to achieve any deployment, the various proposals suggesting 
> that the IETF provide a pile of

The notion that this is a single problem space is an illusion, or an 
artifice.  The IP address is a bit like Maslow's hammer - just because 
you can awkwardly use it as a tool to solve a particular problem does 
not mean that it's well-suited for all of those problems.

Keith