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

Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> In message <56E0FB8F-BB53-4DB0-829B-39DFBAB483E8 at bogus.com>, Joel Jaeggli write
> s:
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> =20
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica at juniper.net> =
>> wrote:
>>>>> Leo,
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Maybe we can fix this by:
>>>>> =20
>>>>> a) bringing together larger groups of clueful operators in the IETF
>>>>> b) deciding which issues interest them
>>>>> c) showing up and being vocal as a group in protocol developing =
>> working groups
>>>>> =20
>>>>> To some degree, we already do this in the IETF OPS area, but judging =
>> by your comments, we don't do it nearly enough.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> There may be an OPS area, but it is not listened to.
>>>> =20
>>>> Witness the latest debacle with the attempt at trying to make 6to4 =
>> historic.
>>>> =20
>>>> Various "non-practicing entities" were able to derail what network
>>>> operators largely supported.  Since the IETF failed to make progress
>>>> operators will do other things to stop 6to4 ( i have heard no AAAA
>>>> over IPv4 transport, blackhole 6to4 anycast, decom relay routers...)
>>>> =20
>>> Those are all REALLY bad ideas. Speaking as an operator, the best =
>> thing you
>>> can do to alleviate the problems with 6to4 is operate more, not less =
>> 6to4
>>> relays.
>> Unless of course the large providers get their shared transition space =
>> in which case all 6to4 behind it will break in a really ugly way, pretty =
>> much exactly like in the mobile operator in question.=20
> And would deploying draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option-02.txt and/or
> adding router reachability tests have addressed this issue?

Neither of these approaches address existing cpe, and shared transtion space is justified on the basis of existing cpe...

We go into this with the internet we have not the one that we would like to have the later takes time.

>> The goal of 6to4 to historic was not to encourage the outcome described, =
>> it was to take having 6to4 as a default method of any kind off the table =
>> going into the future. If mature adults want to use it great, but =
>> conformance tests shouldn't require it, CPE shouldn't it on just because =
>> what they think they have a is a public IP with not filtering and hosts =
>> shouldn't use it unless told to do so..
> But that is *not* what the draft did.  Making the protocol historic
> did LOTS more than that.  I think there was universal consensus
> that 6to4 should be off by default.

And that'll take some time while particularly for the CPE to age out.

> There was this nuke 6to4 from orbit attitude which did nothing to
> help with already deployed/shipped boxes.  6to4 historic is actually
> harmful for dealing with the existing problems as it tells vendors
> not to include 6to4 support in future products which means operators
> won't have boxes with fixes to other problems to alleviate the
> problems cause but the currently deployed customer boxes.

The interpretation of attitude is a matter of taste. When that authors of 3056 and 3068 come down in support of or opposed to the same draft there clearly some debate. 

If we focus on what really would be in the best interests of the end user, it is a  decline to zero in the unintentional use of 6to4 in cpe and operating systems. it is the removal of 6to4 from requirements where it presently exists, and it is the continued support of relays to support legacy devices. 

It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new relays when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm).


> What would have been much better would have been to encourage CPE
> vendors to release images which address some of the known issues.
> Just adding a check box saying "enable 6to4" and for ISP to send
> out email to say "check your router vendor web site for fixed
> images".  The better fix would be to get them to also add support
> for draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option-02.txt which greys out
> the checkbox when is sent as a response to the option.
> Remember operators are in the position to alleviate lots of the
> 6to4 issues themselves.
>>> Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as likely =
>> that your
>>> AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =
>> connectivity
>>> with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that =
>> you're
>>> sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe the
>>> 6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really =
>> help
>>> anyway.
>>> =20
>>>> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they have
>>>> customers to support and businesses to run,  and they don't have =
>> thumb
>>>> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
>>>> =20
>>> I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them does =
>> much
>>> more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you proposed
>>> above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more =
>> customer
>>> issues rather than reduce them.
>>> =20
>>> Owen
>>> =20
>>>> Cameron
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>             Ron
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
>>>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 =
>> broken?)
>>>>> =20
>>>>> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, =
>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>>>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing =
>> lists
>>>>>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are =
>> already doing.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly =
>> broken.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process.  If =
>> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol development =
>> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, =
>> which in many cases is right.  Sometimes you just have to play with =
>> something before you worry about the operational details.  It also does =
>> not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, and =
>> can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org