On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional, proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETF
there is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?
Well, all this discussion and the set of requirements are nothing new. Quite the contrary. Lots and lots of talking was done, but still multi6 resulted in shim6. Where should one gain hope? They were constantly beaten with 6D Maglites, what does it take to see the light? Most folks have given up argueing I guess. I myself certainly did, at least in open fora. But I have also to admit that I'm shocked how few folks have the balls (or is it lazyness?) to express their opinion on IPv6 multihoming in the public, on the established fora for that stuff. See the recent threads about IPv6 PI / multihoming on ARIN PPML and other policy-making mailing lists. Almost zero feedback from enterprise / SME folks. That of course makes it much easier... "see, noone really complains! we must be going down the right road!".
And looking at the IPv6 allocation lists, I see that some of the folks' employers involved in shim6 developement actually have got their own allocations (and even leak more-specifics in geopgraphic distinct locations for traffic engineering). Looks like they couldn't convice even their own IT folks that shim6 or anything else will fix their problem (feature wise and/or timeline wise).
that is troubling, yes... 'hypocrisy' ?
Hm, perhaps more like OPP syndrome, no idea. You can very comfortably talk about ignoring requirements, when you have your own allocs in place, or know that you can easily pretend to be an ~ISP by sheer size of the company (you know, the "our IT department is the ISP for all other departments and spoke sites, and we have lots of them" standard trick). Frankly I don't have a clue what really lead the IETF to do the multi6 => shim6 move. Don't have any insight into the politics behind the curtains. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0