[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
also I do not consider 6to4 an LCD. It is a custom solution for many users. And a method that can be used by other mechanisms to work with.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:55 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:00 AM
> > To: Fred L. Templin
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> > "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> > ...
> > > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > > provide a better fit.
> > It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> > with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there
> > is a strong
> > argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.
> Then stated it please Brian. Your really not responding to
> Fred's wording.
> The market wants special solutions like ISATAP, Teredo, and
> DSTM and they are all being deployed by customers I know of
> and will not share so no one ask. Granted its trial networks
> but that is how it starts. An LCD solution is good but not
> for all cases. Fred's car to minivan to truck is a perfect
> analogy he sent out. In my case I require a truck to haul my
> guns and german shepherds around :--).
> That being said I am being silent on all of this because as
> far as I am concerned ISATAP, Teredo, and DSTM all got
> screwed by the IETF process after years of support and work
> by the working group. But that is OK because if we don't
> continue this work in the v6ops group under some valid
> assumption based on the charter definition I for one will go
> do the work in the market and not in the IETF. I don't know
> how Christian and Fred feel but I know DSTM is being deployed
> and we can create a defacto spec if necessary and move it
> into the market. I am not playing this game much longer.
> Its absurd. In fact its not just IPv6 transition. Its in
> many places of the IETF.
> If someone finds technical flaws or problems in design of
> specs thats cool and they have to debate and state and defend
> their position. But to just tell a working group and authors
> "we just don't like it and its not needed" is hardly the IETF
> process I have come to spend so much energy on because it is
> completely unfair. I won't put up with it and I think many
> vendors won't put up with it. We have enough momentum and
> forums and lots of coordinated efforts in the industry now it
> might be time to just by-pass the IETF and just go do it and
> maybe that will give our process a wake up call. Because one
> is needed.
> But I would really like to hear you technically defend or
> even from market perspective why you believe the LCD is a good idea.
> > We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced
> > solutions.
> I don't think so. We will just do it in the market thank you.
> > Brian