Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > 8+8 came MUCH later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime time.  The reason we know that is that work was the 
> > basis of LISP and ILNP.  Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants.  And there certainly were poor design decisions 
> > in IPv6, bundling IPsec being one.  But the idea that operators were ignored?  Feh.
> I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but I find the notion that operators were ignored pretty preposterous 
> too. There was a significant amount of bleed over between the two as I recall from going to Interop's. What incentive 
> do vendors have to ignore their customers? Vendors have incentive to listen to customer requirements and abstract 
> them to take into account things can't see on the outside, but to actually give the finger to them? And given how 
> small the internet community was back while this was happening, I find it even more unlikely. 

You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing enough information to the community to get the 
negative feedback their solution so richly deserves. At that point, they have rather strong incentives to push for the 
IETF adopting their solution over customer objections because of entrenched code-base and a desire not to go back and 
explain to management that the idea they’ve been working on for the last 6 months is stillborn.

Owen