Subject: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:10:53 -0800

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> What you say is possible, and has happened. But dumb
> things happen. Those dumb things could happen with non
> site-local addresses as well.

More limited, that's the point. Not perfect, but better than unregulated
anarchy. However, between a network design that does not meet RFPs (and
therefore does not get implemented) and anarchy, I pick anarchy,
especially when I'm not the one dealing with it later.

This community designs protocols to please code developers and protocol
designers. If it designed protocols with users in mind maybe less dumb
things would happen because dumb users would not have to do dumb hacks
to make things work.

> But look.  Ultimately I think we as a community do
> need to own up to better tooling, which can lead to
> better expectations.

This requires teamwork and what we have today is a bunch of people
entrenched in their positions and unwilling to compromise. If you want
better tooling, why don't you talk to the whiners that want to have the
cake and eat the cake? You know, the same kind of people that wrote a
"real" operating system or designed a "real" router that managed to
capture 0.5% of the market but of course is better than the
implementation that captured 75% of the market.

Maybe if these people had compromised instead of digging their heels
they would not be whining about proprietary implementations.

> The tools need to set expectations, and perhaps some
> of the DHCP prefix delegation code can help here.

Care to explain?

Michel.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:10 -0800

Hello Michel,

Michel Py wrote:

> cake and eat the cake?

Doesn't seem to be couched in very constructive language, really,
does it?

>                You know, the same kind of people that wrote a

What if the market were shaped by:
- using questionable business practices to cripple/kill competitors?
- predatory/stupid legislation?  (e.g., efforts to outlaw "French" technology)
- selective failure to enforce existing legislation?
- powerful and misleading advertising?

Does it mean that we should require new sections in every
Internet Draft explaining how the protocol can succeed
by suggesting some clever strategies for misleading
advertising and so on, or how to kill competitive protocols?
I know you didn't want to suggest this.

Maybe you didn't really mean what you said.  It amounts
to "might makes right".

Regards,
Charlie P.