On 9/14/21 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
8+8 came *MUCH* later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime
time. The reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP
and ILNP. Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants. And there
certainly were poor design decisions in IPv6, bundling IPsec being
one. But the idea that operators were ignored? Feh.
I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but I find the notion
that operators were ignored pretty preposterous too. There was a
significant amount of bleed over between the two as I recall from
going to Interop's. What incentive do vendors have to ignore their
customers? Vendors have incentive to listen to customer requirements
and abstract them to take into account things can't see on the
outside, but to actually give the finger to them? And given how small
the internet community was back while this was happening, I find it
even more unlikely.
You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing
enough information to the community to get the negative feedback their
solution so richly deserves. At that point, they have rather strong
incentives to push for the IETF adopting their solution over customer
objections because of entrenched code-base and a desire not to go back
and explain to management that the idea they’ve been working on for
the last 6 months is stillborn.
But we're talking almost 30 years ago when the internet was tiny. And
it's not like operators were some fount of experience and wisdom back
then: everybody was making it up along the way including operators which
barely even existed back then. I mean, we're talking about the netcom
days here. That's why this stinks of revisionist history to me.
Mike
