Subject: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:44:22 -0700

Keith,

You appear to beleive that the only reason someone might disagree with you is ignorance. 

The question you do not appear to ask yourself is whether the disagreement results from their ignorance of technology or your own ignorance and cluelessness.

Neither the internet nor the IETF are perfect. There are problems to be solved and some of those problems are such that they can only be solved by people who are willing to question the dogmas and intellectual baggage that you constantly preach.

PHB

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:	Shane Amante
Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only

[followup to a reply that wasn't cc'ed to the IETF list, but I think 
it's relevant for the broader audience ]

> Two of the fundamental tenets of education is: a) a willingness to 
> learn; and, more importantly, b) a willingness to teach/lead/show 
> others.  No one in the L2VPN WG has expressed an unwillingness to learn 
> about IPv6; instead, no one within the WG (modulo Giles; thanks Giles!), 
> or elsewhere, has expressed a willingness to lead the group in 
> developing the requisite features required to support IPv6 wrt ARP-MED.  
> Unfortunately, your impudent message has not demonstrated a willingness 
> to help leaFrom [email-masked] Fri Aug 18 13:21:38 2006
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:44:22 -0700
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>, "Shane Amante" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:02:44 -0400

<BR>
In this case, there are specifications for IPv6 and router/neighbor<BR>
discovery that are freely available for anyone to read.&nbsp; Perhaps =
they're<BR>
not basic reading material for just anyone, but they are not overly<BR>
complex.&nbsp; I don't see why people who are qualified to be IETF<BR>
participants shouldn't be able to read and understand them and at =
least<BR>
tentatively base designs on them.&nbsp; There might be some aspects of =
the v6<BR>
protocols that are hard to understand, but surely it is easier to =
find<BR>
IPv6 experts to answer specific questions than to find IPv6 experts =
who<BR>
are willing to conduct tutorials.&nbsp; Again, there might be some =
aspects of<BR>
the design that make L2 tunneling difficult, leading to a difficult<BR>
design choice - but surely such choices can be identified, and surely =
it<BR>
is easier to get IPv6 experts to answer questions about specific =
design<BR>
decisions than to get IPv6 experts to design the IPv6 portion of =
your<BR>
protocol for you.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe in industry the usual practice is to hire an expert in a topic<BR>
rather than to have someone already on board to apply basic =
engineering<BR>
skills to a new problem domain.&nbsp; That might be a faster way of =
getting<BR>
something done, to jump ahead of the learning curve.&nbsp; But it's also =
hard<BR>
to make good compromises between different considerations if the =
people<BR>
involved don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of most of<BR>
those considerations.&nbsp; So as applied to L2VPN - basically I think =
that<BR>
the principals behind the L2VPN design need to learn enough about =
IPv6<BR>
and RD/ND to have at least a rough idea of what needs to happen to =
make<BR>
it work, even if you find an IPv6 expert who has a more precise =
idea.<BR>
Because at some point you're probably going to find a case where a<BR>
compromise is needed and without some shared understanding you =
aren't<BR>
going to be able to see what kind of compromise is a good one.<BR>
<BR>
Keith<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Ietf mailing list<BR>
[email-masked]<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf">https://www1.ietf.or=
g/mailman/listinfo/ietf</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6C2D4.CB0D72F7--

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:02:44 -0400

> You appear to beleive that the only reason someone might disagree with you is ignorance. 

That's ridiculous.  Arrogance is another reason.

Keith

[email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only
X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

> You appear to beleive that the only reason someone might disagree with you is ignorance. 

That's ridiculous.  Arrogance is another reason.

Keith