[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

[william(at)elan.net]

First, I totally agree about what IPv6 should have been (easy renumbering,
non-bgp multi-homing & mobility, etc) and that it did not happen.
See some of my opinion about it below, but generally I have to note what 
is being deployed is not the best technical solutions proposed, but 
rather the ones in regards to which there has been the least conflict.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> Now, considering we have to write code and deploy it, the IETF is
> all but out of time.  If they can't get some of this technology
> documented and out the door in the next 6-18 months then the IETF
> should just shut down all work on them, as they all become moot.

1. We're out of time already. When IPv6 transition needs to happen
what we'll have is working ipv6 stack which thankfully has been made
available for most OS. But considering how long that took (and its
not even available for everything), that is as good as it would be.

2. IETF need not shut anything down, transitions happen and there
will be new one later that new internet users & business can take
advantage of. At the same time we must have IPv6 PI in order to
make it possible for existing IPv4 users to start using IPv6 as
that is the way they know how to. So we must be prepared that
IPv6 will have both PA and PI blocks and what needs to be done
is make it advantageous in the future for new users to use new
technologies - and yes, that make take another 20 years to get to.

> Does anyone at the IETF understand that, or am I the only one with this
> view?

There are a lot of very smart folks at IETF that I think know all this. 
However:
  1. IETF is also composed with individuals with their own egos and
     sometimes rather opposite opinions which technology and direct
     should be done. Right now it seems IETF decided to let each group
  2. IETF also is to large degree controlled/influenced by vendors who
     sometimes have their own interest not necessarily aligned to best
     interests of the internet community as a whole.
  3. IETF operates though consensus and there is still a lot of debate
     in regards to IPv6 transition. Especially big problem is lock of
     clear architectural vision (see #1) and ability to direct this
     vision through vendors who have their own interest (#2).

Of course above is all my personal view and it may well not be correct,
somebody with closer ties to inner circles of IETF feel free to correct.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net