<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Dear Colleagues:</font></div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">0) I would like to
summarize this thread of discussion with the following:</font></div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">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.<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">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.</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">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?<br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Regards,</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">Abe (2022-03-31 11:20)<br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4"><br>
</font> </div>
<font size="4"> </font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="4">On 2022-03-31 08:35,
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:257c8833bb2b467293b363f5534dd8b7@huawei.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org">mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com@nanog.org</a>] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:01 AM
To: Tom Beecher <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:beecher@beecher.cc"><beecher@beecher.cc></a>
Cc: NANOG <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org"><nanog@nanog.org></a>
Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC
Tom Beecher wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> 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.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDX</a>
yAUA/
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs
to get worked on , it will be worked on,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that
became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I
don't like the solution that they chose."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com">jmaimon@jmaimon.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com"><mailto:jmaimon@jmaimon.com></a>> 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority.
Joe
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>