the iab simplifies internet architecture!

Fri Nov 11 21:22:27 UTC 2005

[ many folk may wish to skip to the *** ]

> yes, a specific member of the IAB said that.

and we have let their name live in peace.  and my message made
it very clear that it was one member speaking.

> wondered out loud whether he had noticed everyone else on the
> IAB edging away from him (something about lightning strikes
> emanating from the dagger-eyes of fellow IAB members I think)
> and observing that in the viewpoint he was on his own.

actually, i was hoping that there was a coherent vision behind
the provocative statement that the speaker would be willing to
share with nanog and work on developing.  the ops community is
absolutely *desperate* for a real vision of how we move forward
for the long term in addressing and routing with realistic
technologies and actually viable transition strategies.  and we
sure have not seen them yet.

> On Nov 11, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> but it will be a classic.  if you can get and edit it, send it to  
>>>> boing boing or /.
>>> Pearls before swine.
>> that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their  
>> opinion of talking to us operators.
> distinguish between the IAB, the IESG, the IETF, ISOC, and or
> any of the other acronyms that start with the letter I.

fred, you're talking to someone who was stupid enough to waste
a dozen years of his life tilting at those very windmills.  i
have been attacked as a clueless operator, and heard operators
as a class denigrated, by each and every one of them [0].
apologies that i did not have the bad taste to keep other than
the most amusing quotes.

> Guys, we're all in this together, and it would be better if
> we spent a nanosecond thinking about how to get along.

we have spent decades trying to get along, and will continue to
do so.  we don't have a choice, as we're all in the same
bathtub.  but in my experience, there are very different goal
sets, means of achieving them, etc.  and whitewashing over the
problems with "let's play nice," "be a team player,"  and
"charlene is not playing nice and there is no real problem,"
just makes the problems fester longer and deeper and makes them
worse when they inevitably force their way to the surface and
explode.

denial may not be just a river in egypt, but the erosion is
serious in all its instantiations.

***

but credit to leslie, who did come to nanog (and has been at
many ops fora) and did listen.  though the discussion was a bit
frank, which, of course, it never is at ivtf <sound of pigs
wings>, i think the message was clear, though far from new.
and she has my sympathies for what i imagine (having tried to
communicate the same message for a while) she faced when she
tried to bring it back to the ivtf.  likely she will has more
skill at this than i, no big surprise there.

and nanog really appreciated dave's ten minute description of
who the ivtf and iab are.  we ops natives are soooo uneducated.

i suggest, as opposed to the forever chant "operators should
come to ivtf and participate," that more ivtf folk should come
to operational fora and try to participate.  with the ivtf's
move to mediocrity and complexity, it is no longer the center
of the universe.  and come as equals, not as the enlightened
slumming.  we're all just bozos on this bus.

we need to meet where the rubber meets the road, not the sky.
if there is something nanog can do to facilitate this, shout.
and i am sure the same goes for other ops fora.  

but please don't plan yet another "the wonderful things the
ivtf is doing in area x."  try something more like "what are
the most critical forward problems and what are the deployment,
transition, and use constraints on possible approaches?"

the goal is / would be to develop technology that is actually
useful and deployable and with realistic transition plans.  and
no it will not be easy.  but denial does not make it easier.

randy

---

[0] - just yesterday, i wore my "bottom feeding scum sucker"
      tee shirt from ivtf, i think, summer '95.