Hi, Dow Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Arnaud Ebalard wrote: > >> As soon as you have a _precise_ use and expected users for that, sure, >> i'll continue the discussion. Now, i let Thomas and Itojun keep asking >> for concrete uses. I consider i have already spent enough time asking >> many times the same simple questions without getting any precise >> answer: >> >> Who will use it? How? What for? > > In your opinion, is it sufficient to describe potential uses of an > IPv6 source routing mechanism? Or is it also necessary to have the > commitment of a large organization / commercial entity who intends to > deploy IPv6 source routing in a specific timeframe and according to a > specific use? No. IMHO, if someone comes with a good idea and other people find it useful and want to have that in their laptop/network/pda/phone ... it seems you have support and should start working on it. In that particular case, people put the most powerful source routing mechanism in the specification, which then got implemented on all routers and even some hosts. During the _huge_ threads after CanSecWest during the discussions on the ietf ML, we asked many times if someone had a use or had already used it. I can remember one person who knew someone that uses the mechanism for some firewalling stuff (correct me if i'm wrong). I don't remember if I asked about the tools that allowed to use RH0: I know only ping6 and scapy6 (again, correction appreciated). What i try to show is that the mechanism has been _proven_ useless by a past decade of full availability: you can bearly find users and tools (at least on IETF IPv6 WG ML). > There is no intended sarcasm imbedded in this question > - I think it is a real and valid question which partly determines how > innovation can occur in the Internet. Someone has a _good_ idea, code it / specify it. If it's real innovation or useful enough, it gets an audience. Otherwise, it remains only an RFC #, or some useless piece of undebugged code in millions of network stacks. > I have been advocating a mechanism that is general and allows for a > variety of potential uses.... ... which have not already been discovered during last decade. > In your opinion, is this an acceptable approach, or would you only > support a RHx that is tailored to a specific use case? For me, you are adding a sword to a chirurgical toolkit, in the hope that it will be sharp enough to be used for some purpose in the future. I just don't see the point. You asked for my opinion, so it's just that. Regards, a+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
