ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

2006-04-17 04:47:48
The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR
policy. I want it to remain that way.  IETF job is a standards body not
a deployment body.
/jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-shim6(_at_)psg(_dot_)com [mailto:owner-shim6(_at_)psg(_dot_)com] 
On 
Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:18 AM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: shim6-wg; ppml(_at_)arin(_dot_)net; 
global-v6(_at_)lists(_dot_)apnic(_dot_)net; IETF 
Discussion; address-policy-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net; 
v6ops(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com: PI addressing in IPv6 
advances in ARIN]

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.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>