[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

[Michel Py]

> Marla Azinger wrote:
> If work on 8+8 truly stopped completely and nobody is looking
> at it at all, then I'm curious why it still comes up in
> conversation as one of the possible fixes (given improvement).

A mix of "maybe I should not had given up on it", "I told you so" and
"if only you had listened to what I said or read what I wrote 5 years
ago".


> However, that said, I do hear Shim 6 mentioned much more and
> how this one might be the best chance at creating a solution.

Because it's the official line of the party. The very fact that 2005-1
is going to last call is the official failure notice of shim6.


> I don't believe that Shim 6 has been disbanded yet.

It won't anytime soon. Utopias live forever.


> I believe working on improving shim 6 or resurrecting others
> and improving them would be done because "some of us care"
> (I'm sure I can hear some laughter out there, but I care).  

That's what I believed when I started ipv6mh in early 2002. multi6 was
virtually dead, and many people have told me privately that the only
thing ipv6mh ever achieved was to maintain the illusion of a workable
IPv6 multihoming solution. In other words, if I just had let multi6 die
in 2002 we would not have wasted 4 more years for someone to put on the
table a PI policy.


> however I believe supporting both sides of the coin. One
> being we want to multihome and two being we need to keep
> the routing tables healthy.

A lot of very bright people, many of them with the right political
connections have tried for more than 10 years. All have failed; as the
self-appointed curator of the failed IPv6 multihoming solutions museum,
I can tell you that there's a lot on display already and I still could
dig a few skeletons out of the closet.


> I'm an optimist

The time when IPv6 could be deployed with optimism has come and gone.


> Owen DeLong wrote:
> I agree that the IETF lacks operational focus.  However, it is
> the large ISPs and router vendors that shouted loudest to avoid
> PI space, and, these are the groups that continue to shout the
> loudest. That is simply a fact.

Ack.


> I'm not saying that there's any sort of conspiracy between vendors
> and largeISPs. I'm saying that vendors are over-represented in the
> IETF, large operators are underrepresented, and, enterprise and
> smaller consumers are virtually un-represented.

Another over-represented group is the academia.


> I don't think that the IETF acted in bad faith, and, I'm not
> trying to make any such accusation.  I do think that the IETF
> failed to deliver a scalable routing solution and continues
> to focus on dead-end paths that do not offer any possibility
> of real solution.

Ack this too.


> Further, I do think that the large ISPs have a profit
> motive to preserve a PA only addressing model

Of course they have. Customer lock-in. The fact of the matter is that
PA-only is good for large, already established ISPs (which happens to be
the ones with lobbying dollars to stuff IETF and ARIN meetings) while
smaller ISPs trying to get in would likely favor policies that let them
compete on service. I found a rather interesting correlation between ISP
size and their support of or opposition to 2005-1, actually :-D


Michel.