Huitema
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:59 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: accusations of cluelessness
It is perfectly fine to review a specification, understand the
intent of
the original designer, and suggest ways to better achieve the same
result. That is exactly what
Mark Seery wrote:
[..]
The ethos of running code is all about establishing a proof that something
works.
I never said otherwise. Running code has been a useful means for reducing the
solution space from which the IETF publishes. It has never been a hard and fast
metric of good design.
Scott's data point gives a better view of what is reserved/not allocated, but
another data point is that only 30%-32% of the IPv4 address space is currently
being advertised (according to RIB dumps at routeviews.org).
-mark
--- Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the reason I don't try
*
* But that's really not the point here. The role of an _engineering_ taskforce
* is to act like engineers, not a vanity press. Our output should be educated
* guidance to the wider community - created with diligence and offered with
humility.
* We can do no more and should do no
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* But that's really not the point here. The role of an _engineering_ taskforce
* is to act like engineers, not a vanity press. Our output should be educated
* guidance to the wider community - created with diligence and offered with humility.
* We can do no more and
It is perfectly fine to review a specification, understand the
intent of
the original designer, and suggest ways to better achieve the same
result. That is exactly what working groups are supposed to do. It
is
also perfectly fine, if the original designer won't change their
design,
to
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:58:55 PDT, Christian Huitema said:
Well, who made us kings? It is one thing to work and publish designs
that hopefully will be good. It is quite another to judge someone else's
design and brand it bad.
On the other hand, the same skills that allow us to evaluate our own
On zondag, okt 12, 2003, at 03:23 Europe/Amsterdam, Scott Bradner wrote:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
you might take a look at the RIR web pages - it does not cost
an ISP $2500 to get additional address space allocated - the
additional fee for additional space for large ISPs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
| Well, who made us kings? It is one thing to work and publish designs
| that hopefully will be good. It is quite another to judge someone else's
| design and brand it bad. It is far better to let the market be judge.
|
I agree. But should we not as
Christian Huitema wrote:
[..]
Well, who made us kings?
a track record of being decent engineers. which is why most of
us are ignored when we offer legal advice, and some of us are
acknowledged when we offer clues on networking. (true, others of
us are merely princes, pages or court
Well, who made us kings? It is one thing to work and publish designs
that hopefully will be good. It is quite another to judge someone else's
design and brand it bad. It is far better to let the market be judge.
You're not insisting that the market be judge; you're insisting that
IETF lend
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:25 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness
Just what would you suggest in the way
--- grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
the market has sight. market analysts have hind-sight.
engineering is about fore-sight. therein lies a world of
difference in roles and responsibilities.
The fore-sight of any role is constrained by assumptions. An engineer who
designs a
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:02:09 PDT, Mark Seery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
thing depending on your view). Put another way, if the criminal justice system
had the same level of effectiveness at protecting physical assets, I wonder
whether civilization as we know it would exist.
If you want to take
That is a fair point, but I would observe that there are plenty of more
cases where locks were not sufficient.
If there are no tradeoffs to actions/feedback loops, then agents in a
system can not make optimization/fitness decisions and evolution does
not occur.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
Nobody made us kings. In fact, we are not kings.
On the other hand, we are not a publication house. Someone having an idea
and writing it up does not require us to publish it as an IETF
standard. Even if it is a good idea.
If someone wants to have the IETF work on something and produce a
snip
the market has sight. market analysts have hind-sight.
engineering is about fore-sight. therein lies a world of
difference in roles and responsibilities.
The fore-sight of any role is constrained by assumptions. An engineer who
designs a building to withstand a collision with a 707
/maillists.html
Ray
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ray Plzak
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: accusations of cluelessness
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Keith Moore wrote:
snip
the market has sight. market analysts have hind-sight.
engineering is about fore-sight. therein lies a world of
difference in roles and responsibilities.
The fore-sight of any role is constrained by assumptions. An engineer who
designs a building to withstand a
there is no perfect foresight. there is no perfect hindsight either.
nor is the market either efficient or reliable at choosing good solutions.
It appears the word market is overloaded with lots of social/political
ideology so rather than go down that road, let me redirect the point by
Keith Moore wrote:
snip
These days, a lot of people seem to be arguing that IETF shouldn't do
engineering.
Hopefully not - not I for sure, I mean that would require a name change
;-) What I think exists is a difference of opinion about what the
definition of engineering is. Another
These days, a lot of people seem to be arguing that IETF shouldn't do
engineering.
What I think exists is a difference of opinion about what the
definition of engineering is.
another way to put it is - after ~17 years of IETF, we need to start
defining what Internet Engineering means.
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I don't have any problem with IETF/IANA saying the addresses formerly
allocated to site-local will never be re-assigned. I do have
a problem with IETF giving any support to the notion that it's
reasonable to use site-local addresses.
In the real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vernon Schryver wrote:
|From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
snip
| is also functionally indistinguishable from the talk about IPv8 and the
| foolisness of those someone likes to call legacy internet engineers.
That is a bit below the belt isn't it?
I don't have any problem with IETF/IANA saying the addresses formerly
allocated to site-local will never be re-assigned. I do have
a problem with IETF giving any support to the notion that it's
reasonable to use site-local addresses.
In the real world among adults and outside the
Vernon Schryver wrote:
15 years ago a defining difference between the IETF and the ISO was
that the IETF cared about what happens in practice and the ISO cared
about what happens in theory. As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
Without
As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
That's because you aren't trying to write apps that operate across addressing
realm boundaries, and you're apparently not willing to listen to those who
are. OTOH, you're quite willing to make
and in as much as we think
site-locals are bad we must provide a better alternative.
this kind of thinking is a dead end. we must not accept all of the
proposed uses of site-locals without question, because some of those
uses are the very source of the problem.
We need a way for
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
That's because you aren't trying to write apps that operate across addressing
realm boundaries, and you're apparently not willing to listen to those who
As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
That's because you aren't trying to write apps that operate across
addressing realm boundaries, and you're apparently not willing to listen
to those who are.
I am working on an
the reason I don't try to repudiate BCP 5 is that it's clear that for IPv4
we're out of addresses,
total BS
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I am working on an application that works accross addressing realm
bondaries.
[...]
That nasty stuff causes all kinds of real world trouble
just a couple of messages ago you were claiming that the discussion was about
moot theories and now
the reason I don't try to repudiate BCP 5 is that it's clear that for IPv4
we're out of addresses,
total BS
okay, let me state it in more detail: to the best of my understanding, even
if people were willing to stop using RFC 1918 address space, there aren't
enough global address blocks to
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:11:07 EDT, Keith Moore said:
the reason I don't try to repudiate BCP 5 is that it's clear that for IPv4
we're out of addresses, and you can't really solve the problem in IPv4
any other way except to move to another address space.
IANA gave out 61/8 in April 97. 69/8
as much as I feel compelled to respond to personal attacks, I don't think it's
relevant to the IETF discussion list any more. so I'll respond in private.
Keith
Tell you what. If you can convince the RIRs that it's feasible to relax the
allocation criteria for IPv4 blocks, and you can convince the ISPs to make
address blocks available to their customers at reasonable prices, I'll happily
co-author one or more drafts that explain:
- why in hindsight RFC
On zaterdag, okt 11, 2003, at 23:46 Europe/Amsterdam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's clear that for IPv4 we're out of addresses
IANA gave out 61/8 in April 97. 69/8 was August 2002. Except for 3 /8s
given to
RIPE, there's NOTHING all the way to 126/8. 56 /8s at a burn rate of
2 /8s per
year
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as much as I feel compelled to respond to personal attacks, I don't think it's
relevant to the IETF discussion list any more. so I'll respond in private.
If I'd known you were going to switch from public+courtesy copy to
private lectures on how much I
If you can convince the RIRs that it's feasible to relax the
allocation criteria for IPv4 blocks,
Keith
Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?
The basic rule is now - if you (the requester) can show you are going to
use the space you can get it.
Relaxing from that would seem
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
you might take a look at the RIR web pages - it does not cost
an ISP $2500 to get additional address space allocated - the
additional fee for additional space for large ISPs is generally zero.
end site allocations are a different story but
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
If you can convince the RIRs that it's feasible to relax the
allocation criteria for IPv4 blocks,
Keith
Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?
The basic rule is now - if you (the requester) can show you are going to
use the space
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:48:23 EDT, shogunx said:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
If the $2,500 is a stumbling block, you're probably WAY undercapitalized for
the project in the first place
Why do you need your own allocation? Either because you're getting pretty
big, or
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
you might take a look at the RIR web pages - it does not cost
an ISP $2500 to get additional address space allocated - the
additional fee for additional space for large ISPs is generally zero.
Vladis,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:48:23 EDT, shogunx said:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
If the $2,500 is a stumbling block, you're probably WAY undercapitalized for
the project in the first place
A situation I'm used to.
Why do you need your own allocation?
I don't have any problem with IETF/IANA saying the addresses
formerly
allocated to site-local will never be re-assigned. I do have
a problem with IETF giving any support to the notion that it's
reasonable to use site-local addresses.
In the real world among adults and outside the
What kind of pathology would lead someone to reason that private
flames would be more welcome or effective than public flames?
you deserved what you got in private email. the list didn't.
Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?
since I view this as a hypothetical situation anyway (and one that isn't
likely to happen in the real world) I don't think it's necessary to pin down
exactly how they'd go about relaxing the criteria - only to realize that it is
possible to
It is perfectly fine to review a specification, understand the intent of
the original designer, and suggest ways to better achieve the same
result. That is exactly what working groups are supposed to do. It is
also perfectly fine, if the original designer won't change their design,
to
Well, one fairly good indicator of a clueless person is when they insist that
things have to be a certain way, but seem unwilling or unable to explain why.
...
That's all fine, except that it would be more accurate without the words
starting with but... People who absolutely positively know
In other words, what happened to the old IETF that would have said
Site local addresses are utterly stupid and wrong; how large a
block did you say you wanted?
It went away with the old Internet that was mostly an experiment and research
tool used by a relatively small, elite group with
Keith, I don't understand what you are saying here. As I read
his note, Vernon isn't saying make all the applications
recognize a particular address range and do something special.
He is saying ok, we don't think this is useful, but, if it
would help you to have an address range to do
51 matches
Mail list logo
