Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Hi, Justin: 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks. Regards, Abe (2022-03-26 18:42) On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the plumbing.
That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated into a production service. Why should we continue to expend effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider use?
Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
Thank you jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "*/personal freedom/*". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.
<#m_4226728999263060367_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Abe: To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via IPv4. I have seen no evidence of that. I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more knowledgeable on that to speak up if they're so inclined. Thank you jms On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
Hi, Justin: 1) " denying that anyone is being stopped from */working on/* IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to */communicate via /*IPv4. ": The two topics are quite different. It looks that we may have some language issues here. So, allow me to stop. Regards, Abe (2022-03-27 12:31) On 2022-03-27 12:11, Justin Streiner wrote:
Abe:
To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via IPv4. I have seen no evidence of that.
I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more knowledgeable on that to speak up if they're so inclined.
Thank you jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
For the sake of it, Justin, I just published https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/. The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range in an IPv4-only world. For some people that might be enough and I’m totally fine with that. Keep safe; Pascal From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Justin Streiner Sent: dimanche 27 mars 2022 18:12 To: Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Abe: To your first point about denying that anyone is being stopped from working on IPv4, I'm referring to users being able to communicate via IPv4. I have seen no evidence of that. I'm not familiar with the process of submitting ideas to IETF, so I'll leave that for others who are more knowledgeable on that to speak up if they're so inclined. Thank you jms On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com<mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote: 1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
Submit an Internet draft, same as any other IP related enhancement gets introduced. What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015. Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea. Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas. Owen
On Mar 26, 2022, at 15:43 , Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Justin:
1) "... no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4 ... ": After all these discussions, are you still denying this basic issue? For example, there has not been any straightforward way to introduce IPv4 enhancement ideas to IETF since at least 2015. If you know the way, please make it public. I am sure that many are eager to learn about it. Thanks.
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-26 18:42)
On 2022-03-26 11:20, Justin Streiner wrote:
While the Internet is intended to allow the free exchange of information, the means of getting that information from place to place is and has to be defined by protocols that are implemented in a consistent manner (see: BGP, among many other examples). It's important to separate the ideas from the plumbing.
That said, no one is stopping anyone from working on IPv4, so what personal freedoms are being impacted by working toward deploying IPv6, with an eye toward sunsetting IPv4 in the future?
Keep in mind that IPv4 started out as an experiment that found its way into wider use. It's a classic case of a test deployment that suddenly mutated into a production service. Why should we continue to expend effort to perpetuate the sins of the past, rather work toward getting v6 into wider use?
Is IPv6 a perfect protocol? Absolutely not, but it addresses the key pain point of IPv4 - address space exhaustion.
Thank you jms
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:35 AM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com <mailto:aychen@avinta.com>> wrote:
3) Re: Ur. Pts. 5) & 6): I believe that there is a philosophic / logic baseline that we need to sort out, first. That is, we must keep in mind that the Internet community strongly promotes "personal freedom". Assuming that by stopping others from working on IPv4 will shift their energy to IPv6 is totally contradicting such a principle. A project attracts contributors by its own merits, not by relying on artificial barriers to the competitions. Based on my best understanding, IPv6 failed right after the decision of "not emphasizing the backward compatibility with IPv4". It broke one of the golden rules in the system engineering discipline. After nearly three decades, still evading such fact, but defusing IPv6 issues by various tactics is the real impedance to progress, not only to IPv4 but also to IPv6.
<x-msg://44/#m_4226728999263060367_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure. When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out. Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4 issues. In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process and should be struck from the record. I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.
Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
Owen
This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives. On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy. Joe
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement. The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/ He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on, but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem. Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose." On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out.
Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4 issues.
In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process and should be struck from the record.
I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.
Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
Owen
This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives.
On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy.
Joe
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus. To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus. Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on,
IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same problem. Which could be a solution to the problem, but only if the replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement hasnt happened, we still are dealing with the problem. The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time. That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong and harmful. Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash work on one protocol because of the existence of another one that is preferred by the quashers? Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to extend or at the very least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig the system for their preferred outcome.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2 resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of choice of inadequate interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by users, not the pmtud, not the fragmentation, and many other warts. I dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes. I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered. The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion has not been alleviated. For many years now and who knows how much longer.
But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose."
The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same. When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse. What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is that they refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes. Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, > then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from > doesn’t like your idea.
Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority. Joe
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that: - Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC) - Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big additional cost to implement Enhanced Headers - Encryption would never have a small enough cost to make it mandatory - Router would be available in every smallest thing that makes distributed address acquisition redundant (hi SLAAC) We should be fair - it was not possible to guess. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM To: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX yAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus. To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus. Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on,
IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same problem. Which could be a solution to the problem, but only if the replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement hasnt happened, we still are dealing with the problem. The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time. That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong and harmful. Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash work on one protocol because of the existence of another one that is preferred by the quashers? Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to extend or at the very least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig the system for their preferred outcome.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2 resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of choice of inadequate interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by users, not the pmtud, not the fragmentation, and many other warts. I dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes. I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered. The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion has not been alleviated. For many years now and who knows how much longer.
But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose."
The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same. When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse. What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is that they refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes. Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, > then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from > doesn’t like your idea.
Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority. Joe
Hi Eduard And SDN, and overlays, and... I certainly agree with what you're saying. This is why the L3 tech has to keep evolving as a survival trait. It's a delicate balance between evolving too quickly and producing the impression on unstable tech in the one hand, and stalling in the prehistory that you describe on the other, ask a dino when you meet one. I argue that there are IPv6 RFCs to accommodate the cases I've seen on this list, but that the capabilities are largely ignored and -consequently- did not necessarily pass the PM barrier. Stalled we are indeed, but not for the lack of IETF work. Keep safe; Pascal
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG Sent: jeudi 31 mars 2022 14:36 To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com>; Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC) - Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big additional cost to implement Enhanced Headers - Encryption would never have a small enough cost to make it mandatory - Router would be available in every smallest thing that makes distributed address acquisition redundant (hi SLAAC)
We should be fair - it was not possible to guess.
Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM To: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX yAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus.
To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus.
Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on,
IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same problem. Which could be a solution to the problem, but only if the replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement hasnt happened, we still are dealing with the problem.
The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time. That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong and harmful.
Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash work on one protocol because of the existence of another one that is preferred by the quashers?
Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to extend or at the very least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig the system for their preferred outcome.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2 resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of choice of inadequate interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by users, not the pmtud, not the fragmentation, and many other warts. I dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes.
I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered.
The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion has not been alleviated. For many years now and who knows how much longer.
But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose."
The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same.
When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse.
What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is that they refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes.
Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, > then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from > doesn’t like your idea.
Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority.
Joe
Dear Colleagues: 0) I would like to summarize this thread of discussion with the following: 1) It has been well-known in democracy that too much emphasis on "majority consensus" may not be really good for the intended goal. For example, if the general opinions in the ancient time prevailed and the objectors prosecuted, we probably are still living in a world of believing that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth! Science and technology make advances due to a few stubborn and forward looking hard workers, not by popular wisdom. 2) No one should be "defending" the decision of going to IPv6 three decades ago. There is no need to, because it was based on the best information and knowledge at that time. Now, after two decades of "experimenting", we have enough data to analyze and a lot of alternatives to review. There is nothing improper to revise the current Internet course that was set by engineers of at least two generations ago. 3) It puzzles me deeply that the voices of the "Internet-way followers" these days have been so loud. What happened to the rebellion behaviors of restless young generations? Or, such voices come from those who made the choice three decades ago and refuse to update? Regards, Abe (2022-03-31 11:20) On 2022-03-31 08:35, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC) - Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big additional cost to implement Enhanced Headers - Encryption would never have a small enough cost to make it mandatory - Router would be available in every smallest thing that makes distributed address acquisition redundant (hi SLAAC)
We should be fair - it was not possible to guess.
Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM To: Tom Beecher<beecher@beecher.cc> Cc: NANOG<nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX yAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus.
To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus.
Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on, IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem. IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same problem. Which could be a solution to the problem, but only if the replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement hasnt happened, we still are dealing with the problem.
The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time. That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong and harmful.
Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash work on one protocol because of the existence of another one that is preferred by the quashers?
Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to extend or at the very least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig the system for their preferred outcome.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2 resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of choice of inadequate interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by users, not the pmtud, not the fragmentation, and many other warts. I dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes.
I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered.
The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion has not been alleviated. For many years now and who knows how much longer.
But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose." The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same.
When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse.
What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is that they refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes.
Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com <mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com>> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, > then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from > doesn’t like your idea.
Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority.
Joe
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994 that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997)
IP mobility WG of IETF was formed in 1992.
- Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big additional cost to implement Enhanced Headers
Optional IPv4 headers was considered harmful, IIRC before 1992, which has nothing to do with TCAM.
- Encryption would never have a small enough cost to make it mandatory
Cost of encryption is small enough. The problem is to securely share keys, for example, between a source and a router to let the router generate secure ICMP.
- Router would be available in every smallest thing that makes distributed address acquisition redundant (hi SLAAC)
Local router is always available for a network with two or more links, which was why SLAAC were a good idea.
We should be fair
You should. Masataka Ohta
On Mar 30, 2022, at 17:00 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there is no such consensus.
To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus.
Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
Yes, but you don’t have consensus for your new consensus standard, so… Owen
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to get worked on , it will be worked on, but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the solution that they chose."
I suspect people differ in their understanding of the word "consensus": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus "Definition of *consensus* 1a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity>" Versus the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-resnick-on-consensus-01.html (and subsequently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 ) specifically, this paragraph: "Any finding of rough consensus needs at some level to be a satisfactory explanation to the person(s) raising the issue of why their concern is not going to be dealt with. A good outcome is for the objector to be satisfied that, although their issue is not being accommodated in the final product, they understand and accept the outcome. Remember, if the objector feels that the issue is so essential that it must be attended to, they always have the option to file an appeal. A technical error is always a valid basis for an appeal, and a chair or AD has the freedom and the responsibility to say, "The group did not take this technical issue into proper account." Simply having a number of people agreeing to dismiss an objection is not enough." It would seem that Brian Carpenter's message drifted more towards the dictionary definition of "consensus" than what the IETF has historically used to determine "consensus". Brian seems to have tried to sweep under the carpet a very serious problem without properly addressing it, by saying (direct quote): "We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes, and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category." But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers, at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be reachable without v4 connectivity also in place. In order to deploy an IPv6 network today, you *must* also have IPv4 addresses to work with. Try to ping apple.com via v6, or microsoft.com via v6, and see how far you get. Closer to home, try to ping juniper.com/juniper.net via v6, or nokia.com, and you'll find there's a whole bunch of assumptions that you've got some level of working IPv4 in the picture to talk to your hardware and software vendors. In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints. For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282: " 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. " The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved." Matt
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282:
" 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. " The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved."
Matt
I dont know how many ways and times this needs to be said, but you said it quite well. Joe
On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282:
" 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. " The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved."
Matt
I dont know how many ways and times this needs to be said, but you said it quite well.
Joe
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that aren’t deploying IPv6 to get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4 backwater. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that aren’t deploying IPv6 to get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4 backwater.
Owen
You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past 20 years with an impressive record of partial success and much failure and I will fully support and applaud your efforts in doing so. I will also hope that it doesnt take another 20 to finally succeed, because as you point out, you require an extremely high level of participation before its Mission Accomplished. And its not unreasonable to expect that until that approach succeeds, that others' efforts to work on the ongoing problem receive the same support and encouragement. IPv6 uber-alles adherents had more than enough time to claim it was going to solve the problem without any need for anything else and to "request" (quite strongly and wrongly so in my opinion) that everyone rally their efforts around that. Now its time for those adherents to reciprocate. And here is a little bit of constructive criticism to the Evangelical approach. Essentially, you need to pivot from how their efforts can save the world into how their efforts can benefit themselves. You want more people to use IPv6? Make it worth their while. Lower the barriers the cost the risks and increase the bennies. The early adopters, the activists, those who define themselves by their altruism you already got. Dont be surprised when so many balk at doing things they have no particular defined need or interest in doing when the primary beneficiaries arent themselves, but the primary cost carriers are. Or we can just wait and see how the natural course of events eventually plays out. Still looks likely that IPv6 will eventually take over the internet, but it sure would be nice if IPv4 did not become completely unusable before that manages to occur. Joe
There are 2 ways to stop a war: 1) one side it utterly defeated and disaggregated 2) both sides suffered enough and agree to start thinking of the best terms for coexistence 1) is not close to happening any time soon From this, the conclusion is that we have not suffered enough. On the side, the IETF has its own Tao for consensus and such things. See section 4.2 of https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/ As a WG chair, I happen to have to figure consensus out. It's a rough and very human process. It has to do with feeling of support from the room and the mailing list. It has also to do with insuring that all technically valid objections found an answer, even if the opponent is a minority. For work that does not have a home, there's always the Int Area WG. And for those who think we already reached 2) after only 20 years, there's always the discussion on the original thread, and the yada-yatt draft. Keep safe; Pascal
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Joe Maimon Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 5:46 To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that aren’t deploying IPv6 to get off the dime and stop holding the rest of
the world hostage in the IPv4 backwater.
Owen
You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past 20 years with an impressive record of partial success and much failure and I will fully support and applaud your efforts in doing so. I will also hope that it doesnt take another 20 to finally succeed, because as you point out, you require an extremely high level of participation before its Mission Accomplished.
And its not unreasonable to expect that until that approach succeeds, that others' efforts to work on the ongoing problem receive the same support and encouragement.
IPv6 uber-alles adherents had more than enough time to claim it was going to solve the problem without any need for anything else and to "request" (quite strongly and wrongly so in my opinion) that everyone rally their efforts around that.
Now its time for those adherents to reciprocate.
And here is a little bit of constructive criticism to the Evangelical approach. Essentially, you need to pivot from how their efforts can save the world into how their efforts can benefit themselves.
You want more people to use IPv6? Make it worth their while. Lower the barriers the cost the risks and increase the bennies.
The early adopters, the activists, those who define themselves by their altruism you already got.
Dont be surprised when so many balk at doing things they have no particular defined need or interest in doing when the primary beneficiaries arent themselves, but the primary cost carriers are.
Or we can just wait and see how the natural course of events eventually plays out. Still looks likely that IPv6 will eventually take over the internet, but it sure would be nice if IPv4 did not become completely unusable before that manages to occur.
Joe
But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers, at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be reachable without v4 connectivity also in place. In order to deploy an IPv6 network today, you *must* also have IPv4 addresses to work with. Try to ping apple.com <http://apple.com/> via v6, or microsoft.com <http://microsoft.com/> via v6, and see how far you get. Closer to home, try to ping juniper.com/juniper.net <http://juniper.com/juniper.net> via v6, or nokia.com <http://nokia.com/>, and you'll find there's a whole bunch of assumptions that you've got some level of working IPv4 in the picture to talk to your hardware and software vendors.
While I can’t ping those, I did turn off IPv4 and successfully pinged (and downloaded web pages from): www.apple.com <http://www.apple.com/> www.microsoft.com <http://www.microsoft.com/> www.juniper.net <http://www.juniper.net/> www.nokia.com <http://www.nokia.com/> I wasn’t able to find AAAA records for any useful variant of juniper.com <http://juniper.com/>, but since that’s a bank (www.juniper.com <http://www.juniper.com/> has a CNAME record pointing to www.juniper.egs1b.barclaycards.com), I expect them to be laggards… To the best of my knowledge, very few banks have deployed IPv6 in any meaningful way.
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints.
Well, yes and no. The only real limitation requiring you to “have some IPv4” is the failure of other networks to deploy IPv6. That’s not exactly an architectural or technical problem with IPv6, it’s a deployment issue.
For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282>:
"
6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. “
Again, yes and no. While the failure of some networks to deploy IPv6 is proving debilitating to other networks (including mine) ability to move forward with deprecation of IPv4 it’s really hard for me to view that as a technical problem with IPv6, rather than a problem with the failure of those networks.
The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved."
OK, it’s not solved. However, the solution is fully architected and widely deployed. The failure of some networks to deploy the solution really isn’t a design problem or a protocol problem. Arguably, it’s not really a technical problem. It’s certainly not a technical shortcoming of IPv6. It’s a deployment failure, arguably a bureaucratic or political problem as much as anything. Owen
On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
Perhaps it’s more a question of the definition of “properly supporting” than whether or not to do so.
When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out.
My best guess is that the closest example is BSD and it’s tragedy of CARP.
Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4 issues.
We can agree to disagree about this. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can get consensus for that. If enough people agree with me, perhaps not.
In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process and should be struck from the record.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.
Now you’re bordering on ad hominem.
Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
Owen
This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives.
On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy.
There’s no such thing as a human process without ideology driven agendas, so it’s hard to take such a comment seriously. Owen
participants (9)
-
Abraham Y. Chen -
Joe Maimon -
Justin Streiner -
Masataka Ohta -
Matthew Petach -
Owen DeLong -
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) -
Tom Beecher -
Vasilenko Eduard