On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So why aren't operators involving themselves more?
I don't know. I've been involving myself in IETF the past year or so, but
it's not something I can spend huge amounts of time on.
I've seen a number of invitations for feedback and comments on IETF in a
variety of fora such as nanog and other mailing lists etc., yet rarely
does it seem to result in very much participation. Don't they know the
IETF price of admission is nothing, other than a bit of time?
It's the bit of time that is the problem. It's also a competence problem.
I also think quite a lot of people get ticked off when they come to the
IETF and says "we like DHCPv4, we'd like IPv6 to work the same way" and
then being told "you're wrong".
Don't they realise that following and participating in the IETF gives
them an opportunity to be able to both see what may be coming
operationally in the future, and possibly influencing it was well?
Correct, but a lot of the IETF is ruled by academic people or people
working in design who haven't seen any operational network in a long time.
Unfortunately I think the fundamental issue that SAVI is trying to
address is that if you're on a broadcast shared access media e.g. a LAN,
you have to place a level of trust in your peers that they're not going
to disrupt the shared resource, intentionally or otherwise. They have a
shared interest in you not doing it to them either.
*sigh*
I don't know where to start. There has been a lot of work done in IPv4
space to make it deployable for ISPs with some intelligence in the L2
network. These functions for IPv6 is seriously lacking. SAVI tries to do
some of them. IPv4 can be made to be completely secure with ETTH and L2
intelligence (DHCP inspection) and there are millions of people connected
this way in the world. IPv6 deployment in these networks is hard due to
reasoning like you're doing.
SAVI and things like SeND are beneficial halfway measures, avoiding full
quarantining.
I don't agree. Full quarantining is expensive and one definitely wants to
avoid it, it's more cost efficient to share L2 but do other things to make
sure people can't source traffic they shouldn't.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
