Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I am unable to understand what Ohta-san or Vasilenko are trying to achieve,
I sympathize with those who expressed concern on the running code that
lacks architecture.
 I think this discussion is at least 10 years late. We can not get IPv6 to
have 64 bit addresses at this point.
It is just simply time-consuming and unnecessary "gossiping".

It would probably be more productive to propose to start new activity on
Next Generation IP and see if it goes somewhere in IETF. Even if it goes,
remember IP is the base protocol and changing the base shakes things all
the way up. So then we restart  and possibly redo many things that have
been done long ago when IPv6 standardization was finished.

Behcet

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 10:10 AM Masataka Ohta <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>
> > Then why Address Resolution Protocol was needed in principle? (ND or
> > whatever) If the L3 address always had an L2 address inside?
>
> There is no such specification in rfc1526 to mandate "L3 address
> always had an L2 address inside", which means ARP is necessary for
> other address formats, which means optional specification of
> "L3 address always had an L2 address inside" was purposelessly
> specified.
>
> > The OSI was calling for layers isolation. It was a big deal for OSI.
>
> According to wikipedia
>
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer
>     In computing, an abstraction layer or abstraction level is a
>     way of hiding the working details of a subsystem, allowing
>     the separation of concerns to facilitate interoperability
>     and platform independence.
>
> that is, isolation/separation should be a property of layering
> in general not specific to OSI.
>
> > It is not the isolation when addresses from different layers are
> > inserted into each other.
>
> See above that layering is merely "allowing the separation", not
> forcing the separation. As such, even with a properly layered
> protocol, you can have implementations actively destroying the
> separation, though, I think them purposelessly complicated.
>
>                                         Masataka Ohta
>
> PS
>
> Existence of running code for some specification means
> not that the specification is good but that we can
> operate and evaluate the specification to judge whether
> it is good or not.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
>