Leslie,
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:17:01AM -0700, Leslie wrote:
Can we elevate the level of discussion on this mailing list? It's one
thing to disagree over the facts and content, it's another to attack the
person (who has feelings!) behind the document.
All I've read was a harsh critique of the document in question. I
haven't read the original document so I can't speak to whether
said critique is justified or not but if this is supposed to be a
*technical* WG, a proposal or paper must be judged on its
technical merit and not on the purported feelings of its author.
And yes, that can include a judgement on their competence.
If the discussion here is *not* supposed to technical but just
political, feel-good wishy-washy tripe, I beg to be informed of
this, so as to be able to unsubscribe this ML as a waste of my
time.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:10 AM James Morrow via ipv6-wg <[email protected]>
wrote:
i read this document with a mixture of astonishment, confusion and
horror. it's awful.
the document is utterly, utterly broken. it has no redeeming or
worthwhile qualities at all.
the only thing it's good for is an example of how #not# to do an ip
addressing plan based on errors and poorly articulated, mistaken
assumptions. it also shows beyond any doubt that itu should not meddle in
ip addressing because it has no competence or mandate to get involved in
this field. i've already seen far too many deeply flawed itu documents on
ipv6, such as the 2009? nav6 study. this one's much, much worse.
it's painfully obvious whoever wrote this junk has no understanding and
operational experience of how to design or deploy an ipv6 addressing plan
for any non-trivial ipv6 network. the document is not a sound piece of
work that makes any sort of technical or engineering sense.
the document is riddled with errors - far too many to list. it makes
ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact and does not provide any
references to justify these claims or let someone check them. i started to
write down these flaws and then gave up in disgust. why should i do
somebody else's homework for them? conflating ipv6 uptake rates with
developed/developing countries is yet another serious failing. these
things are completely orthogonal to each other.
the unstated assumptions are wrong too.
first of all, the notion of "special" ipv6 addressing plans for iot
devices is foolish. these don't need to be treated differently and
shouldn't be treated differently from anything else that's connected to the
internet - at least from an addressing perspective.
next, it's beyond absurd to suggest or imply there could be one
over-arching addressing plan that can be used and will work perfectly for
iot devices in any network or every use case. that's just basic common
sense. how you'd do that depends on the actual network and its
requirements. for example take smart lightbulbs: an addressing plan for
home use wouldn't be suitable for a large building (school, hospital,
office block, etc) or for a town's street lights. they'd all have
different (subnet) addressing plans that were suited to their specific
needs - number of lights, topology, security, planned expansion,
architecture(s), link-layer connectivity, redundancy / spofs, budget,
latency, bandwidth, interoperability and compatibility with existing
systems / networks (if any), access controls and so on. the document
doesn't even hint at any of those considerations.
the only thing to be done with this document is kill it. kill it with
fire. it's too far gone to be fixed or salvaged..
imo, the wg needs to tell itu to stay well away from ip addressing and
leave this to the experts who actually build and run ip networks.
