[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

[Paul G. Timmins]

I was going to say the same about you. If you're angry, just sue someone
already and get it over with. I tried to be neutral in this, but hearing
months and months of conspiracy theories and now some sort of push for
OSI CLNS over IPv6 because of some "certain root operators want to keep
their monopolies on anycast sales" (obviously a reference to the usual
suspects you decry on a daily basis). Maybe we let these people run the
root servers because they do a good job at it and don't screw up? Are
you offering to run a root DNS server? It's a job you get to do for
free, and then net kooks can implicate you're part of a secret cabal.
Sounds like a good deal.

Tellya what. You set up your own ARIN running OSI CLNS, and your own
root servers over OSI CLNS, and if it takes off and the majority people
actually use it instead of IPv6, I'll buy transit from you. Deal?

Until then, I think I speak for the silent majority when I say that your
conspiracy theories and bandying about of legal terms freely,
denigrating people who are generally respected as good actors on the
internet (and if you don't like that, PROVE OTHERWISE! Making your case
on PPML is great, but you know what they say about arguing on the
internet. Pick your venue and go for it!) just weakens your case in the
eyes of the public, and make PPML look like a collection of bickering
adults in their mother's basements wearing tinfoil hats. As the glorious
comic book I got last summer states: Who is ARIN? YOU ARE! And frankly,
I don't want history to see us in this light. Well, maybe they can see
you in this light, but not the rest of us. Maybe you could start a
livejournal for your rants or something.

-Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:58 AM
To: Paul G. Timmins
Cc: Owen DeLong; PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

If you have something to dispute, dispute it. State your facts, if you
have any to state. I've stated mine.

Your mindless, factless promotion of certain view is wearing out.

		--Dean


On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Paul G. Timmins wrote:

> Dean, are you on drugs? I can't tolerate this garbage anymore. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > Except you can't do name resolution if you turn off IPv4.
> > 
> > I would say that's not full IPv6 support.
> > 
> > I'd say that's minimal sort-of support at best.
> 
> DNS is very severely broken in IPv6. This non-technical reason is that
> certain root operators want to keep their monopolies on anycast sales,
> and so (for technically inexplicable reasons), they have advocated
> mixing IPv6 and IPv4, and silenced dissent in apparent violations of
> anti-trust law.  So, there are no IPv6 root nameservers. Instead, one
> mixes IPv6 DNS records with IPv4 DNS records on the same nameserver.
> This totally unnecessary mixing creates stability problems for both
IPv4
> and IPv6.  One has to remove IPv4 NS records to make room for IPv6
> records, so any effort to deploy IPv6 comes at the expense of IPv4
> stability. While bad enough, that isn't the worst part.
> 
> What's worse is that the DNS resolver implementations are broken as
> well. One can't just create IPv6 root nameservers because the
resolvers
> don't do the right thing--there is no IPv6-specific resolver which
could
> use different root nameservers for IPv6. IPv4 and IPv6 have to be
mixed
> at the roots on down.  Until this is fixed, IPv6 won't really be very
> useful or else both won't be stable.  Altering and updating resolvers
on
> every computer is a very time-consuming job to say the least. So, I
> think IPv6 won't be taking over in 3 years, and IPv4 won't be going
away
> in 3 years.
> 
> Its probably 10+ years to fix the resolver problem, and so a long time
> before IPv6 could be ready for stable deployment outside a lab.  In
that
> time, I'd say we could go to OSI CLNS instead, and have much less
risk.
> 
> The good news is that one can work on both IPv6 and CLNS
simultaneously
> as completely separate stacks.  Keeping CLNS separate from IPv4 this
> time will improve the process of development, and improve deployment
> stability later.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000