On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 13:20 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > 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. Well, just like you, I also nicely hit 'reply-all', except that I am on the other lists too, thus now your original message did mostly come through anyway. > > 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? How can you not agree with something which is not there yet? You don't like super-duper space engines yet either? As mentioned, from a business point of view I agree totally, I would not want it either. From a tech point of view, it will be one of the better things since sliced bread. The future will tell though. > >> Oh, and one thing I should have said last time: Technical arguments > >> 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. Yes, there is some work to be done on shim6, but as long as it isn't complete, don't say that it is dead already. > 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. The discussion: "yeah shim6 is dead, long live PI". Very hard indeed. > >> 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 afterward. [..] > This is close to a useful argument. > > First... [..] I would not agree less. > >> 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. Isn't that like *exactly* what I wrote there: "They don't _pay you_ money and thus you don't care about them." Which is perfectly valid from a business point of view. But it is totally not perfect when looking at what the IETF wanted to achieve with PA-only space. Some people tend to the little guys, other only cash in on the big ones. That is business. But that has nothing to do with engineering a sound protocol. [..] > 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. As I wrote in the previous mail, just wait till shim6 is finalized then start flaming it. Nevertheless, it should be backward compatible and it will > It is not just backbones. Shim6 is not commercially viable. Period. As I also mentioned, there is enough interrest for it, if you don't want it then simply ignore it. > > 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. Well the "you" is the group of people who arranged the PI. But if you want to take the credit, they are all yours ;) > Second: Whatever. If you honestly believe cisco & juniper will fail > or succeed based on shim6, you really need to reevaluate your > hypothesis. Those companies can't care less, why should they, they can keep on selling bigger fatter newer shinier boxes anyway. > > 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? Did I argue? I only commented about some of your statements to which I don't agree. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part