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

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Tue Sep 28 12:36:38 CEST 2010

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:24:09 +0200
Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> On 27/09/2010 23:36, Fred Baker wrote:
> > So you would very strongly prefer a world in which router memory sizes
> > are required to be effectively infinite.
> Fred, let's leave the straw men in the basket.
> As stated many times before, by many people - PI provides multihoming 
> capability and provider independence at low levels of both cost and 
> complexity.  There are no other ways of implementing provider addressing 
> independence, and no feasible ways of implementing end-site multihoming.
> Let's put this another way:  if I were a small hosting company, my 
> requirement to put bread on my table and pay my mortgage would trump your 
> desire to keep the dfz small.  This is the reality that many people face.
> Yes, this is the tragedy of the commons.  No, operators don't like it.
> But for the record, let me repeat once more:  there will be no solution to 
> the problem of PI until the multihoming and provider independence problems 
> have been solved.  If these things are fixed, then operators will listen to 
> your pleas that PI needs to be ditched, but not before.  In the interim, we 
> will continue to do our best to aggregate PA and to discourage people from 
> using PI, where possible.
> > seem to think that the IETF (and therefore the vendors, as operators
> > tell us they don't like to attend IETF meetings)
> In my case - and I suspect many others too - it's not a question of "don't 
> like", but rather "can't justify the budget or time required".  Again, this 
> relates to IETF activities not directly putting bread on my table or paying 
> my mortgage.  Sorry, but I don't work for a large company which can afford 
> to send me to three meetings a year in far-flung places, and where there is 
> no tangible, short-medium term return on financial investment.  This sucks, 
> but I don't have a choice in the matter.

I've only been to one IETF(47) meeting, and that was because it was in
my home town. Not being able to go the meetings is not much of a
limitation, the mailing lists and via Internet Drafts is where most
things happen.

As for putting bread on your table, self-driven education, by
reading RFCs *before* they become RFCs, and contributing to them if you
want to, can only benefit you professionally, and possibly put more
food on your table than you thought. 99% of the bread on my table this
year is because of IPv6, and while I've read a few books on it, most of
the more valuable knowledge I've got of it is because of reading
IPv6 RFCs and Internet Drafts, and participating in IETF mailing lists.
It's taken some personal time, but not an excessive amount. I
sometimes think the time some people spend complaining about it (either
their own time, or their employer's) would be better spent learning more
about it or helping to improve it when there is an opportunity to - if
nothing else, reading a draft and commenting on how the text could be
made clearer is a small contribution that they'll also gain from.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list