IPv6 woes - RFC

Tue Sep 14 21:20:04 UTC 2021

On 9/14/21 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing 
> enough information to the community to get the negative feedback their 
> solution so richly deserves. At that point, they have rather strong 
> incentives to push for the IETF adopting their solution over customer 
> objections because of entrenched code-base and a desire not to go back 
> and explain to management that the idea they’ve been working on for 
> the last 6 months is stillborn.
>>>
>> But we're talking almost 30 years ago when the internet was tiny. And 
>> it's not like operators were some fount of experience and wisdom back 
>> then: everybody was making it up along the way including operators 
>> which barely even existed back then. I mean, we're talking about the 
>> netcom days here. That's why this stinks of revisionist history to me.
>>
>
> I was there for parts of it. Even then, the vendors were entrenched in 
> their views and dominated many of the conversations.
>
Vendors have to be able to implement things so of course there is going 
to be push back when it's not technically feasible or far more 
expensive. Nobody expects customers putting out the actual $$$ to be up 
to speed on the intricacies of TCAM's and other such considerations so 
there is always going to be back and forth.

And none of this alters that nobody has given a scenario where their 
$SOLUTION would have fared any better than ipv6.

Mike