Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a newbox was to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic. But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic. At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote: Let's assume ... that a large part of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. ... you've lost me. where will growth occur? two variables: nat? and stack? so, six possibilities: nat?stack? -- nat v4 nat v6 nat v4+v6 nonat v4 nonat v6 nonat v4+v6 given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, ... v4 will last as long as it's useful. Yes. But may be more as long as there is nothing for better thant an IPv4 with longer addresses. Let consider there would be a Consumers Organizations and Users At-large Committe (COUAC) as one of the IETF entities, sharing into the Internet standard process in due form and time - my approach since long before IETF started. What would they ask for would be probably termed totally differently. They would probably talk of smart-plug (the origin of the word plug-in I know is Dupont's Project Manager shouting in 1984 he did not care about protocols and all he wanted was a plug, a smart plug if it had to be, but a plug). And they would welcome the transition to a simpler and ubiquitous data-jack. How they would be built, they do not care if it works, if there is no hassle like registering, waiting, paying for this and that, and it can do what they want, i.e. to support their everywhere/everyone to everywhere/everyone relations in just (radio) pluging-in. The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up. You know, just like a mobile number. (what we discuss here is antedelluvian for them. Just like using an operator to phone). This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number users will get at birth or creation (with additional ones if they buy them);Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they can use it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial relations. They do not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure, simple, stable, real life services for middle-aged house-wife, elders and kids. IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN, not by RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and treaties. The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States law makers. Show Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and not for the US Gov alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this is simple to achieve). Today they see IPv6 as another USivernal semi-obligation. The day it is a free governement protected and accepted service, it will become Universal. This is just what ITU is investigating : that will please them. All the more than with its NGN work, it speaks a language they can understand and which appeals on them. Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF. And this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be managed ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA has become just an ICANN function). Just consider the difference of commercial impact between presenting IPv6 as : - IPv4 with longer addresses - structured addresses under TCP/IP 80% of the people buy magazines in kiosk for their cover. The IPv6 current cover is not appealing. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
Geoff Huston wrote: At 11:04 PM 17/11/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support. The first paragraph of this section says: Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in approved budget) in equal portions. At a minimum such deposits will be made quarterly. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Not at all - it seems to me to be entirely necessary and appropriate in these circumstances. The IASA needs to operate like any other enterprise - it needs to manage its cash flow, and manage its overall financial position. Your depiction of the financial position makes this more and more like an operational department of ISOC with all funding management placed under the control of ISOC. Frankly this is not what I understand ISOC offered the IETF. The use of forward planning and timed periodic payments according to a documented schedule of such regular payments allows the IASA and ISOC to understand in advance the scale of commitments in terms of the budgetary process for the entire year, as well as being able to manage cash flow based once more on the foreknowledge of the points of money transfer from ISOC to IASA. I fear that Geoff is right. He and I both chaired ISOC during a period when it had serious cash flow problems. If for some unpleasant reason that happened again, we wouldn't want IASA to be at their mercy. Having ISOC formally committed to a regular rate of transfer seems prudent. OTOH if ISOC received an unexpected donation for IETF purposes, that should be transferred promptly - does this need to be stated somewhere? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
Fred Baker wrote: At 10:15 PM 11/17/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to transfer these budgetary bumps and grinds to the IASA rather than allowing the ISOC to help out, making oops, we're low on cash something that has to be discussed as opposed to ISOC simply backstopping things as we have heretofore agreed. By treating them on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis, this section seems maximize the pain they cause. I think we need to find a reasonable way to budget expense stuff you sure make an accrual basis sound tempting, but we do have to have cash in hand too. If you don't have any cash, how you account for it is somewhat academic :^) What I'm saying - and I'm no more an accounting whiz than you are - is that when an accountant looks at these things they tend to be a little different than your Quicken checkbook makes them look. So lets make sure the accounting folks look at it. I wonder whether the IETF would consider talking with ISOC's accounting office to normalize these issues now, and whether the problem really needs to be this tightly constrained? I think this is a very valuable piece of advice. I know that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to accounting methods I'd hoped that the transition team (once it's set up) could go into this - the IESG and IAB are hoping to finalize picking the transition team Monday of next week. That would be a good thing. My point is to not overconstrain the problem, but let them address it. This relates to my previous comment in response to Geoff. It's all about how to smooth cash flow, given that both income and outgoings are bumpy. If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it to be transparent and explicit. It should show up in IASA's accounts and in ISOC's IETF pillar as a debt from ISOC to IASA (or the opposite, if it's IASA that has a cash flow issue) but it would be a wash externally. However, it should be constrained in such a way that it is only for smoothing, and cannot be used to cover a real cash shortfall. I agree that some accounting type person should review the text. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up. You know, just like a mobile number. you know, there was this newfangled thingie invented a few months ago called a name not only can you get it for nearly-free, it's actually written in letters so that you can tell someone else what it is without having to Spell Out All These Numbers gosh, I've even heard of people REMEMBERING them. sometimes even on the first try. and oh yes, you can use it with some fancy stuff back on the Internet to look up stuff like those silly numbers you never want to look at again... I think they call it the Domain Name System or something Numbers are for losers and technologists. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On Nov 18 2004, at 10:26 Uhr, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: if there is no hassle like [...] paying for this and that I'm a bit afraid there are players in this game that won't let us completely eliminate that hassle. Obviously, a situation where a /48 can only be obtained at business rates leads us straight back into NAT land. This is one place where a little bit of legislation (EU regulation) might actually be useful, but then hoping this would be done right is really hoping too much. Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: How the IPnG effort was started
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Wrote [18 November 2004 18:08] --On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up. You know, just like a mobile number. you know, there was this newfangled thingie invented a few months ago called a name not only can you get it for nearly-free, it's actually written in letters so that you can tell someone else what it is without having to Spell Out All These Numbers gosh, I've even heard of people REMEMBERING them. sometimes even on the first try. and oh yes, you can use it with some fancy stuff back on the Internet to look up stuff like those silly numbers you never want to look at again... I think they call it the Domain Name System or something Numbers are for losers and technologists. So I take it that you are the only Alvestrand in Norway? That must be nice for you. But names are very rarely unique outside of a very limited context. When the naming scheme is changed so that the context is specified along with the name, you end up with a scheme that is just as hard (if not harder) to remember. Is it easyer to remember a telephone number itself (ignoring personal phone-books), or the exact spelling of someones name, the the exchange they are on, the country they are in and do you say America, The States, The United States, USA etc), the exact spelling of their name (and due to your inernational presence, I would place a bet that at least one person in the past has mis-spelt your name Harold when addressing you directly). As a thought - Does anyone know the number of DNS registrations in the .US ccTLD? Jools. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] the we don't need to change from v4, ever attitude is simply absurd. Ahem. Let's go to the tape: if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make lemonade. I'm hardly sugessting we live with the status quo. But I see that over a decade of failure still hasn't woken people up. That's OK, I'm happy to let reality pound a few more spikes into people's brains, since apparently nothing less is going to get through. (And Marshall, I have to apologize - I guess it really did need your small, furry animal spiel in order to get through.) The rest of the world will just continue and increase their treatment of the IETF as brain-damage, and their routing around it... I am reminded of an old story about Ross Perot. General Motors (for reasons that no doubt seemed good at the time) bought his computer services company, EDS, and used stock to do it. Since Ross had been the major owner of EDS, be became a large owner of GM, and was rewarded with a seat on the board. As a member of management, and as somehow who had a large chunk of his worth tied up in the company, he set out to see how the company was doing. He was rather unhappy at what he discovered, to say the least. His pithy commentary on GM's then exceedingly lengthy and sclerotic new car development process was unforgettable: It takes five years to design a new car in this country. Heck, we won the Pacific War in four. Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice *that* much time. Windows 3.1! Pfui. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Date:Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST) From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to | adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice | *that* much time. Hmm - the auto analogy is perhaps not a bad one. Cars were invented in what - about 1880? And how long did it take before just about everyone was using one? Or even before they were really widespread? Designing new stuff isn't that hard (IPv6 was done for all practical purposes years years ago now) - getting it widely adopted is an entirely different problem and can take a very long time - which says nothing at all about either the value of, or the need for, the new stuff. Nor does it prevent their being plenty of people who are quite convinced, for whatever reason, that the new stuff isn't necessary or useful, and they're going to keep using the old forever. kre ps: it has been pointed out to me that in my last message I used Stanford's class A as an example, when they have already renumbered and returned it. That's great, and apologies for not checking before putting finger to keyboard. The point doesn't alter though. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On 11/17/2004 9:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows? Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary, and the problem has been with access more than anything else. Usually we see adoption go through big-org to small-org to consumer [according to price and availability], but as of right now there are still very few big-orgs interested in it, and almost no early adopters in the small-org and individual sectors [even though IPv4 has been unavailable to them for many years now]. Demand is not driving adoption, because there is no demand. From all evidence. it actually looks like people would prefer to reinvent IPv4 connectivity as the first choice. no matter how much friction you put on it with allocation rules and whiatnot. This is not primarily a technology problem, and more about figuring ways to convince ~Linksys that their SOHO products need to support IPv6, and also convincing ~Comcast to provide the addresses. Why do they not already? Too much support cost probably, given the limited pool of early-adopter technologists. Okay then, how do we help get the costs lower? Rinse and repeat. Five years would be reasonable if we were actually starting on these kinds of efforts today. Not starting means that it will always be five years out of reach. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Why the IPnG effort failed.
Isn't it more productive than beating the dead horse? If reasons are recognized, it will be useful information to design alternatives, maybe by alternative standardization bodies. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
At 11:21 AM 11/18/04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it to be transparent and explicit. Actually, that's the opposite of what I was pointing out. I was pointing out the bumps and grinds in *IASA* cash flow. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
yes, it goes both ways - I thought I indicated that Brian Fred Baker wrote: At 11:21 AM 11/18/04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it to be transparent and explicit. Actually, that's the opposite of what I was pointing out. I was pointing out the bumps and grinds in *IASA* cash flow. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
This relates to my previous comment in response to Geoff. It's all about how to smooth cash flow, given that both income and outgoings are bumpy. If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it to be transparent and explicit. It should show up in IASA's accounts and in ISOC's IETF pillar as a debt from ISOC to IASA (or the opposite, if it's IASA that has a cash flow issue) but it would be a wash externally. However, it should be constrained in such a way that it is only for smoothing, and cannot be used to cover a real cash shortfall. I agree that some accounting type person should review the text. Brian This sounds to me like people would like this to be based on a seperate account and pre-arranged quarterly transfers (pre-arranged meaning whatever was agreed by the budget process as subsequently modified by any supplementary agreements during the course of the year). In addition there is a requirement that tagged donations are promptly accounted for and one that (to the extent reasonable) a full allocation be made on other isoc expenditures that also benefit the IETF. The cash issue, however, is kind of a red herring. Assuming solvency, this is a wash to the outside world. My point is that cash is only one of many accounts, and there are other asset accounts such as operating funds and other iasa accounts. You're getting into specific bookkeeping directions here. It doesn't seem reasonable to create the chart of accounts or develop the cash management policies in this forum. Instead, more general policies that establish principles are a better level to be at. Things like periodic transfers of isoc donations during the course of the year according to the pre-arranged timetable established during the budget process, full allocation of expenses, and ISOC shall establish and maintain prudent cash management policies to insure the continued viability of the IASA are the level I think we should be talking. The basic point seems pretty simple: the ietf seems to want a seperate set of accounts so that iasa will have an accurate financial picture and a degree of financial control in regards to ietf-specific activites. Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.
It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years, we are doing OK. It is always good to learn from history, of course. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF hotels charging the deposits and not reimbursing?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one day, and for all days I stayed there. Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the deposit (one day), but did not take that into the account, but at the hotel charged me for the full rate for all the days as well. I didn't have this problem. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years, we are doing OK. It is always good to learn from history, of course. That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15 years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new routing addressing architecture. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any more, and precious little incentive to do nonat/v4. *I* can get v6 connectivity easily (heck, I just boot my laptop and ... Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles configuring a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the browser window. It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether the resource I'm trying to contact sees ipv6 as something that needs doing. unless you're aware of different natural laws than i am, somebody will have to go first. i realize that there's more motivation in going second, but still, somebody will have to go first, or by definition nobody will be able to go second. being first gets a whole lot easier as more dual-stack hosts come online, thus requiring less motivation from those who could possibly be first. (certainly less motivation than being first if it means runningv6-only and finding a 6to4 proxy.) so the relative ease of getting v6 address space and of running dual stack really is directly relevant to whether v6 will ever reach the tipping point. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows? forever. Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary, and the problem has been with access more than anything else. i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than all of ipv4. geoff huston's note hit this on the head. even at /29... where are these endpoints now? some are circling the field waiting for a chance to land. some are using NAT. address space lifetime projections don't see the whole game. ipv4 is in end-of-life, and while there's some chance of universal NAT (where ~every endpoint thinks it's in 10.0.0.0/8 and the global routing table is just used by each NAT to talk to the others) it appears much more likely to me that ipv6, warts and all, will be used. there is absolutely no chance that we'll all live out our lifetimes with ipv4 as we've always known it. and with the rocket boosters having been applied to the ipv6 pig, it seems impossible to me that ipv6 will be bypassed and something else will be created to replace ipv4 and be universally deployed the way ipv4 has been. so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and we can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for ipv4, and we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or whether we'll have to live with them or throw it away and start over. but ipv4 is in what the product managers call end of life, and i hope we're not arguing about that. -- Paul Vixie ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than all of ipv4. Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable) is very few. I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that have to do with edge deployment? so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and we can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for ipv4, and we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or whether we'll have to live with them or throw it away and start over. but ipv4 is in what the product managers call end of life, and i hope we're not arguing about that. IPv6 is certainly inevitable in some form or another (at a minimum, its current deployment levels are inevitable), but it's not inevitable everywhere within a sub-decade window. It's kind of fun to think about scenarios here (reinventing bang-path routing comes to mind) but I'm trying to focus on what we ought to be working on to reduce deployment friction. Granted, road-building isn't what the I* collective is good at (or at least not since Postel stopped isssuing executive fiats) but it would ultimately be far more productive, I think. I mean, we can try to fix the problems that folks are having with it (especially including the non-technical hurdles) or we can argue over whether 3% is better enough than 2% to qualify as success, the latter of which seems to be the preference around here. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF hotels charging the deposits and not reimbursing?
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:38, Scott W Brim wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one day, and for all days I stayed there. Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the deposit (one day), but did not take that into the account, but at the hotel charged me for the full rate for all the days as well. I didn't have this problem. Nor did I. The credit from the deposit was the first item on my hotel bill when I checked out. Ken ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Paul Vixie wrote: How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows? forever. Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary, and the problem has been with access more than anything else. i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than all of ipv4. geoff huston's note hit this on the head. "even at /29..." For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country Yes this is a NIC problem, but I wanted to let you know. APNIC is aware of the needs fo small countries in their constituency, I guess there is a similar problem in the carabean and other places... Cheers -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Toute connaissance est une rponse une question" G. Bachelard ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Franck, You cannot get allocations for the SOPAC countries? On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote: Paul Vixie wrote: How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows? forever. Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary, and the problem has been with access more than anything else. i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than all of ipv4. geoff huston's note hit this on the head. even at /29... For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country Yes this is a NIC problem, but I wanted to let you know. APNIC is aware of the needs fo small countries in their constituency, I guess there is a similar problem in the carabean and other places... Cheers -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question G. Bachelard sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: How the IPnG effort was started
Noel, I especially like the proof by emphaticus assertionus: It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Reminds me of the discussion between two dinosaurs back in the Jurassic: well, it is now apparent we are not going to get to the point where we have binocular vision. I think there are at least two possible scenarios: 1) a bunch of kids in college write cool software and document how they do it, and band together with other interested parties to form a consortium of people who build stuff that uses IPv4 as a bearer and run their own protocols on top of it (e.g. IPNNG ). Over time, people recognize there may be economic gain in deploying IPNNG networks. 2) Some of the incumbents think about (1) and do the same. They do it with the two largest constituencies of data networking in the next 5 years (PCs in homes and cellphones). They may have actually started the development of same several/many years ago. They might actually think about using IPv6 in place of IPNNG because they are lazier than bright college kids with time on their hands :-). IPv6 is already taking off, and IPv6 will even more once it is clear to all that IPv6 deployment is not gated by ISPs deploying IPv6. A core problem in the IETF is that its major source of people is down in the ISP space. ISPs don't need IPv6. It is the end system folks that need IPv6, and they KNOW they need it, and are acting accordingly. The really good news is that IPv6 CAN be deployed without the networks changing. The ISPs can catch up when 1) they need to and/or 2) when they want to for the purpose of capturing economic gains. In terms of the concerns of dual stacking: if you were a cell phone guy, would you put IPv4 on your phones? I think not. Regards, peterf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started From: Jon Allen Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED] In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6. Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP (what we now call IPv6) was created in 1992 (it was presented to the ANTF meeting in August '92), and was adopted as IPng at the 30th IETF in Toronto, in July 1994. That's already more than 10 years. Just to give everyone a sense of what that really means, here are some things to jog our memories. In 1994: - The WWW had about 2,700 sites, total. - The current Microsoft operating system was Windows 3.1 Think about that for a minute. It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Even many IPv6 proponents are now speaking of an essentially indefinite period of co-existence. Which essentially voids the original basic argument *for* IPv6... And don't give me any of that oh, we really needed to have the X system available, now we've got that it'll really take off next year. We've been hearing this exact excuse for years - I have a whole file full of them. Yes, there is going to be some deployment of IPv6. (With the amount of money that's been spent on it, it'd be totally astonishing if there *weren't*. If I were a barn manufacturer, and had the kind of budget that's been spent on IPv6, half the airline passengers today would be flying around on jet-propelled barn doors.) It will see some use in discrete areas of the network, particular networks that utilize IPv6. It may even find a certain amount of utility as an end-end naming layer (which is incredibly ironic, but that deserves a rant in itself); but again, that not the original goal - which was to be the ubiquitous packet layer. Look, I really do understand Brian's point - that the current situation is not good. But acting like IPv6 is going to magically save us - when we have year after year after year after year of actual experience that is telling us no, it isn't - is not the way to fundamentally improve the situation. The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really out there, not the network some of us wish were there. To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make lemonade. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
The basic point seems pretty simple: the ietf seems to want a seperate set of accounts so that iasa will have an accurate financial picture and a degree of financial control in regards to ietf-specific activites. not unreasonable - why not leave the description to say just that and leave the details of how to do this to the accountants? Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Title: Converted from Rich Text Harold, Numbers are for losers and technologists. Except that numbers seem to cross a number of languages better than, say, 7-bit ASCII ... YMMV. John ___Ietf mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.
At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years, we are doing OK. It is always good to learn from history, of course. That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15 years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new routing addressing architecture. any hint of what was dreamed at that time ? The real issue is here. We will certainly go THROUGH IPv6 just in order to get a /128 plan, on our way to the /256 one. The real issue is what is going to be the new routing architecture? jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up. You know, just like a mobile number. you know, there was this newfangled thingie invented a few months ago called a name not only can you get it for nearly-free, it's actually written in letters so that you can tell someone else what it is without having to Spell Out All These Numbers gosh, I've even heard of people REMEMBERING them. sometimes even on the first try. and oh yes, you can use it with some fancy stuff back on the Internet to look up stuff like those silly numbers you never want to look at again... I think they call it the Domain Name System or something Numbers are for losers and technologists. oh! Dear... was this written by Harald What do you intent to say ? Until now you were the only one prefectly reasonable oh! yes I know: today is Beaujolais nouveau. jfc BTW just made the count it was 249 months ago that I started using names made of a root, customer and host part. Is that what you refer to? But you over looked the numeric names. If you know about datacoms (and Internet) history you know the part they plaid. And how we can praise Dominique Marchand for what she did with them. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 09:27:55PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote: At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote: That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15 years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new routing addressing architecture. any hint of what was dreamed at that time ? The real issue is here. We will certainly go THROUGH IPv6 just in order to get a /128 plan, on our way to the /256 one. The real issue is what is going to be the new routing architecture? jfc That was a long time ago and we've been through quite an evolution in our thinking, including (as Frank Kastenholz points out) realizing that anything we did was going to have to last a long time -- no stopgaps -- and a lot of work on architecture that is still going on. swb ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA activity will be handled. I think that those details should be worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the IAOC (in consultation with ISOC, accountants and tax lawyers). If we insist on including this level of detail, though, we need to make sure that we get it right, and I don't believe that the current text reflects the right way to handle these things. For example, there are some serious problems with co-mingling designated/restricted funds (such as targeted donations) with non-restricted funds (such as IETF meeting fees), and WE SHOULD NOT specify that these things need to go into a single account. That would have the effect of placing unnecessary restrictions on previously unrestricted funds, and that just isn't sound accounting policy. I completely agree with the idea of an annual budgeting process and planned allocations from the general ISOC funds to the IASA function. I think that this discipline and advanced forecasting is healthy and responsible. However, I see no reason to restrict the planned payments to being four quarterly payments of equal size. There is no reason to believe that ISOC funding sources and/or the IASA budget will be flat on a quarter-to-quarter basis. So, I'm not arguing against the independence of the IASA budget and/or the responsibility of the IAOC IAD to maintain it. I am merely arguing that we (the IETF community) should not constrain the model to a flat, quarterly funding model when that is unlikely to best fit the needs of the organization. If there are some high-level guidelines within which we want the IAOC/IAD to operate, we can include them in the BCP. But, it would be foolish to document a detailed accounting policy in a BCP that will later require IETF consensus to adjust or change. We need to pick trustworthy and reasonably well-qualified people to sit on the IAOC, and then we need to trust them to develop and maintain reasonable accounting practices for the IASA function (in cooperation with ISOC, accountants and tax lawyers). Margaret At 4:55 PM -0800 11/17/04, Fred Baker wrote: A question for those maintaining the document There is a fair bit of change in section five, regarding IASA funding. In a nutshell, it now says: - IETF has three revenue streams: * IETF meeting fees * Donations of various kinds designated to the IETF * ISOC funding derived from other sources - the first two get deposited in the IASA checkbook - the third gets deposited in quarterly lump payments - there is an intent to have built up enough money for the IASA to run for six months without receiving a dime, over a period of three years. All that sounds good on the surface, but it differs rather markedly from current ISOC accounting practice, and it seems to over-constrain the problem and its solution. Someone who knows more about accounting than I do will mention the difference between a cash accounting scheme and an accrual accounting scheme, the latter being more usual in corporate accounting. IETF does indeed have these present revenue sources. CNRI/Foretec currently collects IETF meeting fees and uses them pursuant to IETF meetings, databases, and teleconferences. ISOC accepts donations designated to IETF-related activities. ISOC also uses funds from other revenue sources (other donors) to further IETF purposes. ISOC places donations to the IETF in accounts so designated. When the money is spent - usually on the RFC Editor, which is our largest single IETF-related expense - the revenue is recognized, and the books show both the revenue and the expense. The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to present ISOC with an always-on expense - ISOC immediately transfers any such money to IASA. The money is therefore immediately recognized as both revenue and an expense in the ISOC ledger and as a net deposit in the IASA checkbook. ISOC current practice with regard to other IETF (and ISOC) expenses is to pay them as bills are presented. Bills are not presented on nice neat quarterly boundaries; the insurance bill is paid annually, IAB telechats are paid out of the monthly phone bill, meeting expenses and other payments from the IETF Chair's Discretionary Budget are paid episodically, and so on. The current issues in the RFC Editor's office (into which I will not delve in detail; due to an accounting error, they have suddenly needed an infusion of cash) result in ISOC paying an unplanned and unbudgeted lump sum payment. In short, like any other ISOC bill, IETF-related expenses are paid as valid bills are received, sometimes by surprise. A significant part of IETF expenses will be in deposits for future meetings. Generally, the most expensive way to plan and pay for an excursion in a hotel or conference center is at the last minute. As a
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Sorry. I made a mistake, it was 313 months ago that I started using names made of a root, customer and host part. Robert Tréhin would know better (he was the one with Joe Rinde to introduce root names - or TLDs). Again if that is what you refer to. So old. 249 months ago is roughly when I started deploying numeric names. So may be other used them before. Newfrangled is probably an euphemism. jfc At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: you know, there was this newfangled thingie invented a few months ago called a name not only can you get it for nearly-free, it's actually written in letters so that you can tell someone else what it is without having to Spell Out All These Numbers gosh, I've even heard of people REMEMBERING them. sometimes even on the first try. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
At 4:35 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA activity will be handled. I think that those details should be worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the IAOC (in consultation with ISOC, accountants and tax lawyers). Personally, I think you're flat wrong. The IETF has to come to a consensus opinion on how this is going to work, and a BCP is how we state consensus opinions on how things work when they aren't technical standards. The elements that you seem to believe are details are, for many of us, fundamentals. We're not enshrining account numbers and naming our auditing team here--we're trying to identify how the money is expected to flow. That's something that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what we want correctly (and that we understand the consequences) is certainly appropriate. Asking external parties to make those decisions for us is not a good idea. Waiting to make those decisions until the die is cast is a startling bad one, and it isn't fair to ISOC or the IETF. If you wish to argue that these matters should *also* appear elsewhere, I support that--ISOC may have other ways it needs to say these things so its other constituents hear them and know whether or not to agree. But not talking about the money flow here when we're making an organizational change of this magnitude would border on negligence. Speaking personally, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter, Neither of us has the required data to back this up but my impression of the IETF attendance in the last 5+ years has been largely hardware/ software vendors, followed at a distance by service providers, researchers and curiosity seekers. If you count only those who participate, the number of vendors and perhaps researchers would far outweigh service providers. As such, v6 isn't really seen by the service provider as 'my fight'. (To take an even more cynical view, v6 is often deployed as a reaction to IPv4 as a 'North American' phenomenon (rightly or wrongly and forgive me in advance)). I agree that NA ISP's don't 'need' to deploy v6. I agree that they have no short term economic reason to do so. In fact, as many of them are fighting to stay alive they have very good reasons not to deploy v6. To reference an earlier analogy, just as there were very good reasons not to toss a bunch of perfectly good class 5 line cards in the hopper and replace them with ISDN cards despite all good intentions of standards bodies and vendors... The difference being that ISDN had nothing to do with an inadequate numbering plan for the future. While it is certainly possible to deploy v6 without ISP's, 'the universal deployment of IPv6' will not happen without them. It won't even be a smooth deployment of IPv6, it will be ugly and it will take a long time. With regard to dual stacks, I think that this is the best that we can hope for (and the only path that will lead to universal deployment of IPv6). If I cared about this subject (I do) I would be lobbying in this direction with my friends in ISP's and content providers. It isn't that hard, you and I used to work for an ISP that deployed a dual stack, albeit OSI and IP, internet. (yes, and I liked TUBA too). jy On Nov 18, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Peter Ford wrote: IPv6 is already taking off, and IPv6 will even more once it is clear to all that IPv6 deployment is not gated by ISPs deploying IPv6. A core problem in the IETF is that its major source of people is down in the ISP space. ISPs don't need IPv6. It is the end system folks that need IPv6, and they KNOW they need it, and are acting accordingly. The really good news is that IPv6 CAN be deployed without the networks changing. The ISPs can catch up when 1) they need to and/or 2) when they want to for the purpose of capturing economic gains. In terms of the concerns of dual stacking: if you were a cell phone guy, would you put IPv4 on your phones? I think not. Regards, peterf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started From: Jon Allen Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED] In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6. Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP (what we now call IPv6) was created in 1992 (it was presented to the ANTF meeting in August '92), and was adopted as IPng at the 30th IETF in Toronto, in July 1994. That's already more than 10 years. Just to give everyone a sense of what that really means, here are some things to jog our memories. In 1994: - The WWW had about 2,700 sites, total. - The current Microsoft operating system was Windows 3.1 Think about that for a minute. It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Even many IPv6 proponents are now speaking of an essentially indefinite period of co-existence. Which essentially voids the original basic argument *for* IPv6... And don't give me any of that oh, we really needed to have the X system available, now we've got that it'll really take off next year. We've been hearing this exact excuse for years - I have a whole file full of them. Yes, there is going to be some deployment of IPv6. (With the amount of money that's been spent on it, it'd be totally astonishing if there *weren't*. If I were a barn manufacturer, and had the kind of budget that's been spent on IPv6, half the airline passengers today would be flying around on jet-propelled barn doors.) It will see some use in discrete areas of the network, particular networks that utilize IPv6. It may even find a certain amount of utility as an end-end naming layer (which is incredibly ironic, but that deserves a rant in itself); but again, that not the original goal - which was to be the ubiquitous packet layer. Look, I really do understand Brian's point - that the current situation is not good. But acting like IPv6 is going to magically save us - when we have year after year after year after year of actual experience that is telling us no, it isn't - is not the way to fundamentally
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
Hi Ted, At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote: That's something that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what we want correctly (and that we understand the consequences) is certainly appropriate. Asking external parties to make those decisions for us is not a good idea. Waiting to make those decisions until the die is cast is a startling bad one, and it isn't fair to ISOC or the IETF. Do you consider the IAOC to be external parties? I don't consider the IAOC to be any more external than the IESG and IAB, so I think it is appropriate for them to run their own function (the IETF Administrative Support Activity) with the same level of authority and discretion that we afford the IESG in running the IETF Standards Process. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: How the IPnG effort was started
Jeff, In terms of being inside the ISP space, I would include all of those people who build software and hardware for ISPs such as router, switch, firewall, etc.. My taxonomy intended to differentiate between app/host vendors and IP-transport/router-switch vendors. Apologies to all in my broad brush polar coloring of the world. I actually disagree: I contend that IPv6 can happen without the ISPs. Why couldn't the entire world end up running IPv6 on top of IPv4? What is the total number of ISP demarcations needed for everyone in the work to interconnect with the Internet? If at some later point in time the ISPs join the IPv6 party, then the world will be better off. (I am of course arguing at the ends of the spectrum of possibilities, reality might live somewhere in between) Regards, peterf (an app/host kind of guy ... :-), but I used to be in the IP-transport biz) ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
At 6:40 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Ted, At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote: That's something that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what we want correctly (and that we understand the consequences) is certainly appropriate. Asking external parties to make those decisions for us is not a good idea. Waiting to make those decisions until the die is cast is a startling bad one, and it isn't fair to ISOC or the IETF. Do you consider the IAOC to be external parties? No, I consider the attorneys and accountants you mentioned in your message to be external parties. You don't go to either set and ask What you should we do here? --you say Here's what we want to do and then they help you make it work. The point I am trying to get across it that it is up to this community to say Here's what we want to do *before* saying that they consent; saying We consent without having said Here's what we want to do won't work. Ted ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote: For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32 presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is not the case. All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do is say to APNIC I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200 customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need addresses, so please give me a /32. The RIR might ask you a few questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the answer will be yes, here you go. None of the RIRs currently say please justify why you need to be able to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices. If they did, nobody would have v6 address space today. IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different. We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, or something :-) Joe ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote: On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote: For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32 presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is not the case. All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do is say to APNIC I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200 customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need addresses, so please give me a /32. The RIR might ask you a few questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the answer will be yes, here you go. None of the RIRs currently say please justify why you need to be able to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices. If they did, nobody would have v6 address space today. IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different. We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, or something :-) And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? --jon ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote: On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote: On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote: For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32 presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is not the case. All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do is say to APNIC I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200 customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need addresses, so please give me a /32. The RIR might ask you a few questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the answer will be yes, here you go. None of the RIRs currently say please justify why you need to be able to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices. If they did, nobody would have v6 address space today. IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different. We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month, or something :-) And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? tunnels. --jon ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
On 18 Nov 2004, at 21:05, Jon Allen Boone wrote: And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? End sites get addresses from ISPs, or use 6to4, or get direct assignments from RIRs if they qualify as operators of critical infrastructure. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
re: AdminRest: New version of IASA BCP document available
some comments overall this document seems quite reasonable but I think there are some quite real problems mostly stemming from it trying to over proscribe future arrangements. I think the document needs to articulate philosophies but not get too deep into the details because it would reduce the ability of the IAD and IAOC to react to changed situations one example from section 3.1 - Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability. This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place. I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking zones is far from the best way to do that I think this whole paragraph should be redone to something like In order to maximize the separation between fund raising and the actual operation of the standards process all final decisions on contractors, IETF meeting sponsors, and other IETF-specific business decisions are the responsibility of the IAD and IAOC. In particular, as long as proposed activities fit within the approved budget the ISOC President/CEO or the ISOC BoT cannot refuse to agree to a contract that has been agreed to by the IAD. The above is not meant to limit the ability of the IAD and IAOC to consult with all parties or the ability of ISOC personnel from expressing their opinions during the IAD's process of evaluating a contract or contractor. also from section 3.1 The IAD will prepare an annual budget, which will be reviewed and approved by the IAOC. The IAD will be responsible for presenting this budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as part of ISOC's annual financial planning process. The IAOC is responsible for ensuring the suitability of the budget for meeting the IETF community's administrative needs, but the IAOC does not bear fiduciary responsibility for ISOC. Therefore, the ISOC Board also needs to review and understand the budget and planned activity in enough detail to properly carry out their fiduciary responsibility. Each year, the complete IASA budget will published to the IETF community. This does not seem to admit to the possibility that the ISOC board might say 'wait a minute - you are asking for twice as much money as you got last year - we need to work with you to figure out a funding level that the ISOC can support' - i.e. it is not reasonable to assume that the ISOC BoT can carry out the above mentioned fiduciary responsibility without being able to engage in a dialogue over budget amounts. An open question in my mind is the degree of detail and itemization that the ISOC BoT needs to have to carry out the fiduciary responsibility - i.e. it seems like the ISOC might have a hard time with its auditors if what it approved is just a line item for the IETF expenditures with no breakdown. But on the other hand we do not want the ISOC BoT to be arguing over how many copies of the newcomer's presentation handouts get made. We need to figure out a reasonable process that permits the ISOC to understand what the money is going for, be able to suggest alternatives if they might be more efficient, and have an ability to have input to the review of RFP responses without limiting the ability and authority of the IAD/IAHC to make the final decisions (as long as they stay within a budget) question - what is the backup mechanism for the IAD? (if the IAD were to get truck fade for example) question - who gets to set the pay and bonuses for the IAD? a note - I did not see a specific statement that the IAD will be an ISOC employee (benefits, human resources dept etc) section 3.5 If voting is used and the votes are equally split, then the IAOC chair decides. my opinion - if we get to that point we are real deep do do - we don't permit a bare majority to control in the IETF why should we in this case? I suggest that a proposal needs at least 2/3 support in the IAOC to be approved. appeals of IAOC decisions will go to the IESG and continue up the chain as necessary (to the IAB and the ISOC Board). note that IETF appeals to the ISOC board can only happen if the process (not the application of the process) is being challenged - i.e. in this case if this document is seen as unfair - I think that limitation needs to be here also - I do not want someone's appeal of the IAOC's decision to
Re: AdminRest: Finances and Accounting
Ted sed: No, I consider the attorneys and accountants you mentioned in your message to be external parties. I must be misunderstaning you because it sounds like you are saying that it does not make any difference if lawyers and/or accountants say that the structure proposed in the document is illegal or not reasonal accounting practice because that would be the opinion of external parties and the opinin of external parties should be ignored I hope that is not what you are actually saying fwiw - its my opinion that we should fins out if someting makes legal or accounting sense before deciding to take that path Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been previously... IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of PCs in homes and cell phones. I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers in the United States went to IPv4 instead of IPv6, but they did. I can say I was honestly dismayed to learn (in the past year) that the Push-to-talk Over Cellular (PoC) 1.0 specifications (*) changed the 3GPP IMS specifications (that required IPv6) to use IPv4 instead. But that's what's been happening lately. I'm not nearly as interested in forecasting the future as some of you guys, but it seems like we do have to recognize that deployment of IPv6 in either residential access or cell phones would reverse some pretty recent trends. Trends do reverse, but I haven't seen a deceleration point yet, much less a tipping point in these networks. Sorry! Spencer (*) Available from a variety of places, including http://www.ericsson.com/mobilityworld/sub/open/technologies/ims_poc/docs/poc_relase_1_0_spec From: Peter Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:12 PM I think there are at least two possible scenarios: 1) a bunch of kids in college write cool software and document how they do it, and band together with other interested parties to form a consortium of people who build stuff that uses IPv4 as a bearer and run their own protocols on top of it (e.g. IPNNG ). Over time, people recognize there may be economic gain in deploying IPNNG networks. 2) Some of the incumbents think about (1) and do the same. They do it with the two largest constituencies of data networking in the next 5 years (PCs in homes and cellphones). They may have actually started the development of same several/many years ago. They might actually think about using IPv6 in place of IPNNG because they are lazier than bright college kids with time on their hands :-). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
