Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing. Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet. Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.
On 04/14/06 at 5:07pm +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet.
Did you participate in the process? Even if you can't justify travel to Montreal, the PPML is wide open. ARIN doesn't go solely by the vote in the room; they also consider whether there was consensus on the PPML.
Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.
I think the ARIN process is closer to the IETF's "rough consensus" process than to "democracy". If you think the PI policy ARIN passed will "blow up the internet", I would encourage you to participate in drafting policy proposals to help limit the impact of PI on the routing table. Bear in mind that we didn't approve an "IPv6 PI for everyone" policy precisely to avoid "blowing up the Internet": instead we only extended existing IPv4 policy to IPv6. As I've written before, I'm attempting to draft an ARIN policy proposal to ensure PI addresses are assigned in a regular fashion instead of the random chronological fashion we do now with IPv4. As you seem to support that, I would encourage you to help draft such a policy proposal and help get people to support it. -Scott P.S. I don't think we need quite so much cross-posting as this...
This message was cross posted to a large number of lists. I would like to make the root of the discussion clear, without taking an opinion. This link is the original message, best I can tell. Hopefully from there each individual on this message can tell how they came to receive it. http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2006/msg00162.html Please go back to the header as well. Lists from several different organizations have been CC'ed, and each will have their own opinion. All are available on the web. A well informed reply is the best reply. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On 4/14/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet.
Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.
I am a member of the ICANN ASO AC and I was there, but I'm not sure you meant that, and, the ARIN forums are open to all. The vote was a display to our advisory council to what the constituents "want". The ARIN mailing lists get just as much consideration. Where are you? -M< _______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet.
Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. Congratulations. Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do. I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the past. But I would urge you to stick to those, or at least consider why we remain unconvinced, rather than devolve into .. whatever that post was supposed to be. -- TTFN, patrick
On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.
Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something. But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong?
I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the past. But I would urge you to stick to those,
Stay tuned.
On Apr 16, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.
Thank you for believing my opposition of your ideas is simply because I "lack a view of the big picture". Note that it is entirely possible I believe the reverse to be true. Or perhaps you see a big picture, and I just see a bigger one. However, I probably won't lose my cool since, as I stated before, the overwhelming majority of people who run the Internet seem to see my "bigger" picture.
Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something. But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong?
Yes. And so does essentially everyone else who runs an Internet backbone. These are some of the "best and brightest" in the world, and most of them have been around for .. well, 'forever' in Internet terms. But decision such as these really shouldn't be decided simply because someone has been doing this longer.
I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the past. But I would urge you to stick to those,
Stay tuned.
I'll try. But honestly, reading the same arguments over and over gets tiresome, especially when so many well-qualified people have explained the opposing PoV so well. Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical arguments are important, but they are only part of the decision process. People (like me) have explained that the Internet is a business, and in addition to being .. technically unsavory to many people, shim6 is simply not viable in a business setting. Neither backbone operators (vendors) nor end users (customers) are warming to the idea. Just the opposite. (At least in general, the one-in-a-million end user with DSL and cable who likes the idea 'cause he can't figure out how to spell "B-G-P" or doesn't want to pay for it is irrelevant.) So how do you get a technology widely accepted when the majority of people involved do not think it is the best technical solution? When the majority of vendors supposed to implement it will not do so for technical -and- business reasons. When the majority of end users who are supposed to buy the service will not? Okie, trick question. :) You don't. -- TTFN, patrick
[very nice cross posting going on here ;) ] On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 12:10 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: [... large snip about trying to bash shim6 which is not finalized yet, thus how can you bash it ? Note: extra sarcasm included in this post. Eat the eggs with salt. ...]
Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical arguments are important, but they are only part of the decision process.
In other words: "You are right with your arguments, but I just threw your args away as they are futile based on the comparison of money earned this way or the other."...
People (like me) have explained that the Internet is a business, and in addition to being .. technically unsavory to many people, shim6 is simply not viable in a business setting.
And as you will only care for your business for the coming 10 or maybe 20 years you really can't care what happens to the internet afterward. The idea of IPv6 is (still not was) to have it around for quite some time longer than the lifespan of IPv4. Fortunately, the PI thing is far from the end of the world and will only help catch on, see below. Of course any vendor will love the idea of having to do another IP version of course, bring in the cash ;)
Neither backbone operators (vendors) nor end users (customers) are warming to the idea. Just the opposite. (At least in general, the one-in-a-million end user with DSL and cable who likes the idea 'cause he can't figure out how to spell "B-G-P" or doesn't want to pay for it is irrelevant.)
Irrelevant for you as they don't give you money. Indeed, you only look at your own business interrest (and who can blame you for that ;) (Once though the internet was there for the masses and not only for the ones with cash)
So how do you get a technology widely accepted when the majority of people involved do not think it is the best technical solution? When the majority of vendors supposed to implement it will not do so for technical -and- business reasons.
There is for you indeed a business reason to not like it: the end-site won't have any reason to stick to the upstream. Which is indeed a bad business for many of the 'vendors' you mean. As Eliot Lear also said very clearly: Thanks for lining the vendors and all the stockholders pockets ;) That is in the long run, most likely in the coming 10-20 years the IPv6 routing tables will not have 'exploded' yet, but the folks selling equipment and having stocks of those venders after that most likely will have a nice retirement fund. Thanks to you! Nevertheless, the PI thing is really *not* a bad thing, as it can be used as an identifier for shim6, which is actually perfect. It just saves on having to do a complete policy process for getting address space for this type of usage. But thanks to this, this won't be needed and thus in the end anybody who can get PI can use a shim6-alike solution and won't have any problem with the upstream that actually wanted to lock them in by letting them pay loads for an entry in the BGP tables. Thus people voting for PI, thanks for helping shim6 or another solution in that space, progress a lot :) And finally on a much brighter note, especially for the shim6 folks: I know of quite a number of endsites that don't want to use BGP, the don't care about an entry in the routing tables, but do want to be multihomed in an easy way and also want to have 1 unique address space on their local network, but do want to use different upstreams. Shim6 will be perfect for this and thanks to the PI space their is the perfect identifier. Greets, Jeroen (being sarcastic, I guess the amounts of chocolate did it, but hey, I have a great excuse being only 7 mins away from the Lindt&Sprungli factory outlet, happy easter! ;)
participants (6)
-
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jeroen Massar -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hannigan -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Scott Leibrand