Tom Beecher wrote:
If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
That is not an accurate statement.
The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by
Brian Carpenter.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/
As I have explained with my newly introduced consensus standards, there
is no such consensus.
To reiterate my consensus standards, consensus is only to be considered
as amongst stakeholders and IPv6 specific related stakes are not
relevant to IPv4. If you consider the reverse to be true as well, I
think my version of consensus would achieve a much wider and diverse
consensus than the the stated IETF's consensus.
Once a consensus has been proven invalid its beyond obnoxious to cling
to it as though it maintains its own reality field.
He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs
to get worked on , it will be worked on,
IPv4 still needs address exhaustion solutions.
but the consensus solution to V4 address exhaustion was IPng that
became IPv6, so that is considered a solved problem.
IPv6 is not a solution. Its a replacement that does not have the same
problem. Which could be a solution to the problem, but only if the
replacement happens on schedule. However, so long as the replacement
hasnt happened, we still are dealing with the problem.
The IETF made a stupendously bad bet that IPv6 would happen in time.
That is the kind of bet that you better be right about. They were a
decade+ wrong. That they have the audacity and temerity to continue
doubling down on that would be funny if it wasnt so outrageous, wrong
and harmful.
Let us re-examine the premise. When did it become acceptable to quash
work on one protocol because of the existence of another one that is
preferred by the quashers?
Or in other words, the way you are framing things makes it seem as if
the IETF has with intent and malice chosen to extend or at the very
least ignore exhaustion issues for actual internet users so as to rig
the system for their preferred outcome.
Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do.
I agree. I like most of IPv6 just fine. Not SLAAC, not multicast l2
resolution, not addressing policy, not the chaos of choice of inadequate
interoperability approaches, not the denial of features desired by
users, not the pmtud, not the fragmentation, and many other warts. I
dont even like the notation schemes. They require multiple vision passes.
I do like the extra bits. Just not the way they are being frittered.
The real crux of the matter is that it did not work. Address exhaustion
has not been alleviated. For many years now and who knows how much longer.
But the problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I
don't like the solution that they chose."
The problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as turn on
IPv6 and wait for the rest of the world to do the same.
When considered in that manner the IETF's bet looks even worse.
What I dont like is that they were wrong. What I dislike even more is
that they refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes.
Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:18 PM Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com
<mailto:jmai...@jmaimon.com>> wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting
consensus,
> then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking
consensus from
> doesn’t like your idea.
Consensus processes are vulnerable to tyranny of a well positioned minority.
Joe
