On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
because, like most operations folks, you have an actual job keeping actual users working on the actual network... I too fall into the same boat as Mikael here... I have a real job that takes up my 8+ hours a day of work time, and then ... 'volunteer' jobs that take up the remains. Not everyone in ops has time to do this sort of work, the ROI for ops folks wrt IETF is... difficult to justify to management when lower staffing levels, higher work loads and less interest in 'frivolous time wasting' is the new black. >> 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 far more than 'a bit of time'... speaking as someone who's been trying to do ietf things for the better part of 4 years (admittedly sometimes realwork intrudes on my ietf interludes). > > 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". yes (though this is getting better, for the DHCPv6 case at least. For other things... still more head+wall is required) >> 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. this is a case where 'listen to how the network is operated today, please.' is required I think. There are business reasons that things are done as they are in real networks supporting many millions of people. >> 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. "which is available today in production networks using ipv4, and until these capabilities are available in IPv6 as well, there will continue to be less deployment than we all want." (I think was the end of the sentence/intent there) As an aside, railing against "why are not more operators participating" is hard to stomach when the next version of sentence is: "you are doing it wrong because that large network you run already can't possibly work that way in ipv6-land". -chris (thanks mikael!) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
