[address-policy-wg] Re: [narten at us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

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