RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > (Yes, it's possible -- but there are some engineering tradeoffs!)
> > 
> > > DSTM
> > 
> > I'm not yet convinced of this.  Especially I have huge doubts about 
> > temporary address management scalability and robustness.
> 
> There is not other mechanisms that treats IPv4 as DSTM does.  

Well, but there could be.  Personally I've toyed with an idea of writing
Dual Stack Tunneling Mechanism (DSTM) draft.

> Our job
> here is not to decide if temp addr mgmt is scalable the market will
> decide that.  Our job here is to decide if the DSTM spec is functional.  
> I could argue a lot of what we work on here is not scalable.  That is
> not our job.  The market and vendors won't use it if its not scalable.

I think our job is to provide properly engineered, technically sound 
specifications.  Specifications that don't have any known technical 
issues, or at least ones that aren't clearly identified.
 
> As far as robust?  What does that mean?  Why would you call 6to4 robust?
> And define robust.  What is robust to you may not be robust to my
> customers? And what I call robust may not be robust to your customers?
> 
> Robust is to subjective we cannot state specs are robust or not in the
> IETF.

Sure, one cannot really define robust in general terms.  For some it's one
thing, for others something else.  But mechanisms that should be widely
deployed would use even more (and perhaps a tighter interpretation for
analyzing robustness) scrutiny.

[...]

> > And if it's necessary for a node to use it, 10, 100, 1000 
> > times a day?  Is 
> > Ad-hoc really the best way to go?
> 
> OK.  But you have not provided one technical argument against DSTM nor
> has anyone else since the last draft-08 because the working group did
> their job and the authors did their job with updates.

Read my comments from 6 months back.
 
> All your arguments are a "gut" feeling against DSTM and 

There are more, but gut feelings are part of it, yes.  Is that a bad 
thing.  Did people have "technical arguments" against NAT?  Gut feelings, 
at least surely (I'm not saying DSTM == NAT, but to make a point: gut 
feelings, intuition etc. do play a valid role).

> "your OPINION"
> of how IPv6 will be deployed.

Can anyone say anything else?  It's all opinions, hopefully informed ones
of course.

> Hardly an argument to not move forward with DSTM.  This is not a club or
> social group it is the Internet Engineering Task Force and DSTM
> performed that process and is being used as all the mechanisms above.  

...

> Just because you don't like it is not a fair way to stop it from being
> move forward.  

There are reasons I don't like it, and I'd like to see it changed so that
both operational procedures would be possible (with "core" procedure being
the simplest one).

> In fact if that happens it proves all I am beginning to
> dislike about the IETF processes of late.

You'd like the IETF take out the rubber stamp?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords