[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [email@example.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
I don't mind stopping the cross postings. Can someone send a mail to
where we post this and I will abide? I suggest this is v6ops discussion
now but I am unclear on how this helps any v6ops deliverable. It is
kind of like good customer input to SHIM6 and V6OPS?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: Jeroen Massar
> Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore; shim6-wg; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [email@example.com: PI addressing in IPv6
> advances in ARIN]
> On Apr 16, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > [very nice cross posting going on here ;) ]
> Nah, I just hit "reply-all", but only one actually made it through.
> I'm not subscribed to the rest of the lists.
> I've lowered the CC list to something more reasonable now.
> Oh, and commenting derisively on something you do yourself
> seems a bit silly.
> > 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.
> > ...]
> I don't remember bashing shim6. I remember saying people do
> not agree it is the way to go.
> As for "finalized", if I don't agree with the basic idea of a
> technology (e.g. inserting a "shim" into the IP packet), how
> can you "finalize" it to something with which I will agree?
> >> Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical
> >> 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."...
> I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic here, since your
> "translation" is factually incorrect. I was clear the
> technical arguments are not sufficient, or even close. I was
> adding that the business elements are an additional hurdle.
> BTW: Sarcasm is usually intended to either be funny or
> illustrate a point. Your sarcasms is definitely not funny,
> and the only point you are illustrating here is a complete
> misunderstanding of the discussion at hand.
> >> 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
> > 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 ;)
> This is close to a useful argument.
> First, predicting things like router-engine capabilities 20
> years in the future is beyond silly.
> Second, the is a very real possibility that arguments about
> 'blowing up the routing table' are completely incorrect.
> People have been
> worried about it for over a decade and it has yet to come to pass.
> (You could argue that it hasn't happened because people are
> worried about it, but that it true with or without shim6, so
> it's a wash either way.)
> Lastly, whether it is right or wrong, getting businesses to
> do something based on a 20 year horizon, especially when it
> is painful today - and will be for the next 20 years! - is
> essentially impossible. So why are you trying to get them to
> do it? Personally, I have much more important windmills at
> which to tilt.
> >> 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)
> No, irrelevant PERIOD. You cannot architect the Internet for
> the one- in-a-million end user, _especially_ one who does not
> pay for the infrastructure.
> If you argue that they are at all relevant, then we have a
> lot more problems with shim6 than we've discussed. (And with
> the Internet in
> general.) So please explain to me why they are relevant in
> any way whatsoever? I am honestly eager to hear your
> thinking along this line.
> Just be completely clear on the implications of "proving" a
> non- paying one-in-a-million end-user is reason enough to
> change the core architecture of the whole Internet.
> >> 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 ;)
> I'm not a backbone. I am personally an end user. And my
> company is not a backbone, and does not sell transit to
> anyone. In fact, we are
> probably the largest "end-site" consumer of bandwidth in the world.
> And I still dislike shim6 both technically and commercially,
> personally and professionally. So does every technical
> person at my company who has any interest in this topic.
> It is not just backbones. Shim6 is not commercially viable. Period.
> But thank you for attempting to divert the real discussion.
> > 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!
> First, thank you for thinking I am so important.
> Second: Whatever. If you honestly believe cisco & juniper
> will fail or succeed based on shim6, you really need to
> reevaluate your hypothesis.
> > 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 :)
> Then why are we arguing about this?