IPv6 woes - RFC

Thu Sep 16 15:10:47 UTC 2021

On 16 Sep 2021, at 8:58 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at ofcourseimright.com> wrote:
> 
> John you were not the "sole network operator" on the directorate.[1]   https://www.sobco.com/ipng/directorate.minutes/bigten.5.19.94 <https://www.sobco.com/ipng/directorate.minutes/bigten.5.19.94>
Eliot -

You are referencing the minutes of a rather large workshop (the Big10 confab) that had far more attendees that the IPng Directorate itself.

The list of directorate members is contained in RFC  1752 "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol” in Appendix B, and is listed below for reference –

Appendix B - IPng Area Directorate

   J. Allard - Microsoft           <jallard at microsoft.com>
   Steve Bellovin  - AT&T          <smb at research.att.com>
   Jim Bound  - Digital            <bound at zk3.dec.com>
   Ross Callon  - Wellfleet        <rcallon at wellfleet.com>
   Brian Carpenter  - CERN         <brian.carpenter at cern.ch>
   Dave Clark  - MIT               <ddc at lcs.mit.edu >
   John Curran  - NEARNET          <curran at nic.near.net>
   Steve Deering  - Xerox          <deering at parc.xerox.com>
   Dino Farinacci  - Cisco         <dino at cisco.com>
   Paul Francis - NTT              <francis at slab.ntt.jp>
   Eric Fleischmann  - Boeing      <ericf at atc.boeing.com>
   Mark Knopper - Ameritech        <mak at aads.com>
   Greg Minshall  - Novell         <minshall at wc.novell.com>
   Rob Ullmann - Lotus             <ariel at world.std.com>
   Lixia Zhang  - Xerox            <lixia at parc.xerox.com>

> And I'm not saying that there weren't arguments, but I am saying that nobody said, “wait for something better.”  Rather, everyone was arguing for their preferred approach out of the ones I mentioned.
> 

Also incorrect. The preferred transition approached of the recommended IPng candidate (SIPP) was IPAE, and that was actually dead-on-arrival.   Per the same recommendation RFC -

   The biggest problem the reviewers had with SIPP was with IPAE, SIPP's
   transition plan.  The overwhelming feeling was that IPAE is fatally
   flawed and could not be made to work reliably in an operational
   Internet.

This is what lead to the conception of the infamous Simple SIPP Transition (SST) approach as a stand-in Transition plan in order to allow for a decision to be made – and creation of IETF working groups to develop the respective transition mechanisms.  At the time of the IPng decision there was actually _no_ “transition plan” – as the very mechanisms that were to be used (and that were eventually discarded as unworkable) were just placeholders for future IETF work.

Thanks,
/John

p.s. My views alone.  Warning: contents may be hot / burn hazard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210916/10b38def/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210916/10b38def/attachment.sig>