Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Off-topic] Further thoughts: about systems theory and the theory U

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:53:11 -0500 (EST)

> From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>

    >> do you think the community is ready to just "ship it" with something
    >> like the endpoints concept - add naming of endpoints, and split IPv6
    >> addresses in half to name the two classes of things, and call it a
    >> day quickly on the architecture?

    > Definitely not

Well, now you're making me wonder - to be very frank and blunt - whether this
whole exercise is really anything other than a (yet another) paper design
exercise which is destined to go nowhere. Because in saying that, you're
putting on the table the possibility of a major change to IPv6, not just a
fairly minor tweak.

The issue, to put it bluntly, is: how much will is there to change IPv6?
(Even sticking a shim layer in between the internetwork layer and the
tranport layer, so the IPv6 protocol itself doesn't have to be changed,
is still a change to IPv6 in a larger sense.)

If there's no community will to change IPv6, we're wasting out time.

This is where the IESG and IAB *have* to suck it up and try and lead on this
issue - and, yes, probably get some people pissed off at them - and say
something.

It can be as simple as "in our opinion, we think the community needs to do
this - the community may disagree, but in doing so it will be going against
our recommendation", but it has to be something.

Yes, yes, I know the reply is going to be "well, do a good enough design and
then people will buy into it". However, the IAB and IESG need to do their
bit too, not lay back and lay all the burden off.

This is make-or-break time for the IETF and this whole model of managing
Internet technical governance.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:27:45 -0800

Noel,

> The issue, to put it bluntly, is: how much will is there to change  

My answer: little to none in all but a few router jockeys in large  
ISPs and some protocol geeks at a couple of large router vendors.   
But hopefully that'll be enough.

> If there's no community will to change IPv6, we're wasting out time.

Not really, because the alternative to not doing something is too  
scary.  Something will be done because too much money is riding over  
the Internet today.  However, I don't believe that something will be  
a wholesale re-architecture and redeployment of existing IPv6  
technology, it will be an incremental, evolutionary hack that will  
make IPv6 suck just sufficiently less to keep things from falling  
over.  Like CIDR.  Like VLSM.  Etc.  If we're really lucky, it won't  
be too obscene a kludge, but I suspect that's about the best we can  
hope for at this stage.

You're right.  It isn't architecture, it is engineering (in the Rube  
Goldberg sense).  But we've frittered away the time CIDR gave us and  
now we're looking at the wall approaching at an uncomfortable speed.   
As they say in Silicon Valley, "never enough time to do it right, but  
always enough time to do it over"...

> issue - and, yes, probably get some people pissed off at them - and  

You attribute more power to the IESG and IAB than I.

However, I may be too cynical.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:33:31 -0800

Noel,
> If there's no community will to change IPv6, we're wasting out time.
I believe there is will from the IESG/IAB to do whatever it
takes. Lets see if we can convince the community that
there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I don't,
and I don't think the others in IESG/IAB have either,
a magic solution. I would like to work towards
people coming up with the solution(s), however.

(But I would seriously question whether "change IPv6" is
the answer, or at least not the complete answer.)

--Jari