On 16 May 2018, at 12:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> That is a fair request.
> I’m not sure the MIF example applies completely as the
situations were
> different, however I’ll take on board the desire for AD
guidance when
> it comes to work.
> I appreciate the desire to have a ‘home’ for discussions.
How about
> this. I’ll close the WG, but leave the sunset4 mailing list
open at
> least until March next year. I’m sure that the volume of
discussion up
I'm okay with this.
My impression is that sunset4 tried hard, but failed to get consensus.
That's not a failure to get work done --- not getting consensus
usually
takes longer than a trivial consensus.
My take is that sunset4 was sligthly premature;
I don’t think so.
I said on jabber during the end of the first WG meeting:
https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/[email protected]/2012-07-30.html
“[22:12:29] <[email protected]> Have you guys concluded the WG yet? I
thought the only reason to open it was to close it again immediately and
be done with the stuff.”
operators aren't ready do to
this. Yes, there are **now** data centers where IPv4 is going away,
but
those DC also are almost always closed proprietary environments (even
if the
components are open source, I can't buy a cabinet in that space, and
they
don't run off-the-shelf OS builds).
Really? Really? Why-o-why?
I think that we wanted to be premature, such that we could get OS
vendors
to test having no IPv4 *now*,
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8529718.htm
and not discover things are broken ten years
later when the equipement can't be replaced. We actually spured a few
OS
vendors (FreeBSD, Linux, others) to try the test... many discovered
"127.0.0.1" hard code in many places.
Sunset4 didn’t exist when FreeBSD bits could go IPv6-only, when I had
an IPv6-only FreeBSD-based desktop (and still do at home and in a VM on
this commercial OS I have to use for other reasons at time). I gave a
presentation earlier that year about some of the small nits I found
going (mostly) IPv6-only (in 2010/1).
And MS at time, if I don’t misremember, could disable IPv4 already as
well.
In the end, the problem is that funded OS vendors at the IETF has been
"reduced" to Apple and Google, neither of which is in the desktop
market
it seems... While MS is clearly still here, funded Linux OS/networking
people
are not at IETF (Wouters excepted!).
The problem is that IETF is re-active rather than pro-active in a lot of
things (of my interest).
The problem is that people write too much text before writing code.
The problem is that it’s $$$s not steering the world into a supposedly
better future anymore.
(wrong audience; this should probably go to ietf@ )
So sunset4 did as much work as it could without broad OS vendor
consensus.
I believe that the situation will change once more operators begin to
attempt to really turn off IPv4 in a non-3G space.
You don’t need OS vendor consensus. You need to publish an RFC.
Whether they want to be RFC compliant or not is their problem. If they
find the money to send 200 people to IETF voting then “nah” they
could easily also fix their code and send one developer and say “Yes
we can”. It’s an attitude problem, it’s politics, and
mis-bean-counting, not a technical problem.
“We believe in working code . . .” — really?
I am sitting in a country currently where IPv6 is not on the list of ..
to my best knowledge. Yet you’ll find this email, until it leaves my
admin-domain, not having a single IPv4 address in the Received: lines.
I sorted my servers and VPN in 2010 sitting in a hotel room in Sunnyvale
hacking kernels and rebooting servers on the other side of the world,
right after finding IPv6 problems on Googles campus network (which was a
vendor problem, not theirs, yet they hadn’t noticed as their clients
were not different enough), .. . I have an IPv6 address on my Laptop.
I am a geek; I just did it back then. And even better, it cost me
nothing but getting code working, so was a tripple win: (1) working
IPv6 IPsec VPN, (2) Open Source gained patches, (3) I got rid of more
IPv4. When will you (any reader of this message) get this working,
contribute to the public, and how much will it cost you? A few cookies
and two drinks? That’s all it took and a few hours of time. And
being able to work on a great code base of other giants.
Stop re-acting and complaining, look ahead; lead not follow! Live a
dream not dream about a life which could be. That said, I am done
here.
So close the damn thing if you don’t want to publish an RFC anymore
and let people find vendor bashing space elsewhere; move on, don’t
use an open list as an alibi.
/bz back to living a life and stopping to complain.
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
