nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:40:49 +0900
John Curran wrote:
The characterization that the IAB somehow struck back with the IPng decision implies a level of direction over the decision which simply did not exist.
I understand that that is your theory.
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics" involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to "make a decision" rather than IAB/IESG shaping of the various protocol proposals and their technical evolution.
So, your theory is that because IAB/IESG must make decisions, they can make decisions to make IPng a lot worse than IPv4.
The technical teams that submitted each proposal controlled that proposal's evolution, and the IPng Directorate (not the IAB or IESG) made the final IPng protocol selection/recommendation.
Before they were disturbed by IAB, sure. But, as you pointed out, they are politically disturbed to make their proposals merge.
You can confirm all of this rather easily, as the entire set of IPng materials and decisions are here at Scott Bradner’s archive - https://www.sobco.com/ipng/ <https://www.sobco.com/ipng/>
Surely, I can confirm that you actually support my points.
It should also be noted that merger is just political ceremony to pretend IPng were resulted from cooperation of many contributors only to make it bloat by incorporating all the features without technical merits.Half correct; the final protocol was indeed the result of compromise
That is a lot more than enough, not just half lot.
out of the earnest belief of technical merit of the unproven
No. It is out of the earnest belief of political merit by some committee. > Of course, the problem with including > new & unproven features Wrong. A problem, among many, of IPv6 is that it is bloat to have included a lot of old and proven to be useless/harmful features. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- RE: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported), (continued)
- RE: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 31)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 28)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Ca By (Mar 28)
- Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported) Joe Maimon (Mar 28)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 24)
- RE: V6 still not supported Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 23)
- RE: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG (Mar 23)
- Message not available
- Re: V6 still not supported R: 202203232156.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203231017.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 18)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 18)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history John Gilmore (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history James R Cutler (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: BOOTP & ARP history Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: V6 still not supported bzs (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Randy Bush (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 10)