[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On Apr 16, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:


On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 12:10 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:



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?
Not if the people doing so have as a basic requirement something that I find intollerable.
You say it is not "finalized". I say these are implementation details. Does shim6 require a "shim" to be inserted? Or is that something that might be "finalized" away? If the final version is so different on such a basic level, then I submit that you are no longer discussing shim6.
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.
From a business PoV, it is silly. Since businesses have to implement it, that's a show-stopper right there.
From a technical PoV, the overwhelming consensus is that it is not very good, and not even close to the optimal solution. Since technical people, that's a show-stopper right there.
Two show-stoppers at such basic levels are hard to overcome by "finalizing" a protocol. 



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.
I never said shim6 is dead. I said the majority of people who work on the Internet - you know, the people who actually have to live with this if it comes to pass - all wish it were dead. 

And hell yes, "long live PI".
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.


Not really sure what you meant there.



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."
What you said is that they don't pay me therefore they don't matter. What I said is please show me (all of us) why the one-in-a-million user should dictate how the Internet works. I added that they are not paying for the _infrastructure_, not me personally. If they pay someone else to upgrade the infrastructure, that's good enough for me. 



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.
What the IETF wanted to achieve with PA-only space had nothing to do with that one-in-a-million user.
Just the opposite. They were trying to handcuff the other 999,999 users.
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.
Neither does changing the whole architecture of the Internet for a corner case. In fact, doing so is far less sound. IMHO. 



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.
I'm a little confused by the statement "there is enough interrest [sic] for it". Enough interest for what? Continuing development? Protocol implementation? Trading flames on mailing lists? 



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!


[...]


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.


Then what was your point above?

--
TTFN,
patrick