[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-12-12, at 20.32, Michel Py wrote:

>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>> So you are saying that the proposal out of multi6 really
>> would be the best way to go, but as someone somewhere has
>> reached consensus that this will take 10 years to deploy
>> we are going to do PI space anyway? What interests me is
>> that I haven't actually seen anyone discuss the multi6
>> proposals, I've just seen people saying that they haven't
>> studied it.
>
> Kurtis,
>
> The work you have done as co-chair of multi6 is a credit to you (I 
> could
> not say the same for your predecessors).

Well, I think credit should go to the design-teams, but thanks!

> Nevertheless, your WG still
> hasn't produced anything yet and it's been 10 years.

It's been 10 years for IPv6, and 4 years (or 3.5 of whatever) for 
multi6.

> Contrary to what
> you think lots of people actually looked at the proposals and lots of
> people think none is deployable. The blame largely comes from before 
> you
> were appointed but the bottom line is that you missed the launch 
> windows
> by 4 years at best.

The problem is that we didn't address routing scalability when IPv6 was 
designed. And that we (for some definition of we, but let's accept the 
consensus model) actively choose not to deal with this for a long time. 
Now we are trying to catch up. I don't think a discussion of why we are 
here, how long it took us, and how long we have left is all that 
useful. We have a problem. We have recognised, now let's deal with it.

> I will remind you the words of Randy Bush, then-AD when he appointed
> you: "Shuffling desk chairs on the Titanic".

You have cited Randy on this pretty frequently, I can't speak for 
Randy, but (claiming) knowing Randy I could never figure out if he 
meant multi6 or IPv6. Never mind.

> There are enough people
> that have followed this story over the last 10 years, are you trying to
> say that your ship floats now? Please, you don't even have a single
> proposal as a WG document. Come back to us when you actually have
> something.

We do have a single proposal since D.C. It's not a protocol yet, as 
that is left to another area. It's not a WG document yet, as we are 
waiting for people to submit the changes. As for coming back, I rather 
see the operational community provide some input rather than second 
guessing the work. The mailinglist is and has always been open.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQb3utaarNKXTPFCVEQKM1gCgg2w7lr/Um3wgZln1a0AhHASVhNcAnjQd
gj3s07Vs1aQUGBdjgKnnkC5L
=8/vx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----