I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Sun Sep 26 07:27:55 CEST 2010

On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:31 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> I may be a bit of a curmudgeon here, but I think one sentiment you might 
>>> hear from the operations community is: "No thank-you.  The IETF has 
>>> already done more than enough to place obstacles in front of IPv6 
>>> adoption, particularly by 'end sites'.  We don't need to add to that."
>> I'm curious as to what specifically these obstacles are or have been? 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5887

OK, so it sounds like Michaels comment was that the IETF has actively make it hard to deploy IPv6. The response is "Renumbering still needs work", and the upshot of the discussion in RFC 4192 ("renumbering a network without a flag day") is that the things that make renumbering hard are the places where people take shortcuts with things magically knowing addresses instead of using names, or put addresses into configuration files.
    interface foo
       ipv6 address 2001:0db8::1/32

So the complaint is that the IETF has not found a cure for human stupidity/laziness or for the need to configure routers? Or is there another complaint?

I'm serious. If the IETF has actively gotten in the way, there's something we need to fix. If it's something that neither the operators nor the IETF can solve, that's an unfair response.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list