Re: [arch-d] ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:13:45AM -0800, FREDERICK BAKER wrote:
> I'm not calling private or controlled networks link layers. I'm calling "(SR-)MPLS and even more so L2 ethernet switching" Link layers.

Thanks, that was not quite clear to me from your first statement.

> You call a large part of what follows a "rant". I'll agree with you that it's a rant - and not respond.

Sure. Let me know if you are interested in any actual technical
discussion without rants abou the technical points i raised.

Cheers
    Toerless

> > The Internet already is an overlay of sorts and the heavy lifting is
> > done below it by those private/controlled network re-using IETF TCP/IP
> > technologies, and a lot more than "The Internet".  Including the likes
> > of MPLS, SRv6, DiffServ, heck even IntServ or *yikes* IP multicast. And
> > parts of the IETF are still treating innovation to improve those type of
> > networks as tangential or subordinated to comply with policies really only
> > built just with "The Internet" use-case in mind.
> > 
> > Making future IETF technologies better support where the heavy lifting
> > is done is what i think would serve the IETF well.
> > 
> > [rant]
> > About your first point: I think that additional entities like
> > governments "breaking" the Internet is a completely separate point,
> > from the one i made and argued above.
> > 
> > The vision of the transparent global Internet was a great vision to
> > me until 1995 when the Internet population exploded and IMHO the
> > model started to fail. Since then, the mayority of TCP/IP hosts
> > connects to the internet through some type of policy filtering,
> > and the IETF has architecturally not really acknowledged
> > that reality or the need for it. How are countries policing the
> > Internet for their constituencies now any different from enterprises
> > having done the same for decades for their constituencies ? What
> > else but closing its eyes to the issue did the IETF do in the last 25
> > years ?
> > 
> > And now its easy to see how a limited number of regulated
> > "WWW service conglomerates" will happily claim to solve all policy
> > requirements at their application/gateway level. Because IETF
> > networking architecture has failed to evolve the "Internet" model to
> > something a little more based on reality of human society than the
> > original Internet garden of Eden model that is still canon.
> > [/rant]
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
[e-mail]