RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC7D3A0FDA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PLING_QUERY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-gFsFdpWLcr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487513A0FD6 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 04TJ47Uq023642; Fri, 29 May 2020 15:04:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1590779049; bh=S8Z6+s5yeCU4/pktd3F1VljtaAiWjDl5u5noaVYTri0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Hy5hTmVdTM1mqpsaTn8qjaYXAZgBJ8/an+JHy65pJVEUL/lRmWrqY8v9AG/4lDmWF p3/unXSigmgdA9ZfKmbsZ9J9SZqG+FkduliYZPbjAP+Jsh9+zuydal7ZrUWXNVsCGg VnEvzyehZuGoBjD0ipNQk0bwCUr1ozt9Tbq2TL1HHpKr6jR4S9ertqsxT/NRzjhoII lshkoJug9l4xB55wdY5IWvgeR72IiPBnDS5v3lJpGb889DJl55QLG6kTTgnX7ZjUxx 7ViJCradTti3Omxy2kZGNXbXWnLqK/K5F6LQrZbXqelAR/u5pZuBuZRLpEvu06HJH3 8iSnlXScx6gzw==
Received: from XCH16-07-09.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-09.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.111]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 04TJ44Re023615 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 May 2020 15:04:04 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-09.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:04:03 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:04:03 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
CC: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Topic: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
Thread-Index: AQHWNdxxX0X8NhgHhkOb7Wes8Gwgg6i/UfLggACL1oD//43KIA==
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 19:04:03 +0000
Message-ID: <0be6ee97591742d7b0ea31f7d6821e4d@boeing.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org> <1C1F0496-33A8-4646-B356-369EA9ABAD33@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com> <7AC15DBA-17DD-4CF7-95C1-0F1C6775BF30@fugue.com> <20200529171234.GY62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <780e1c824e204003a944d152415278f8@boeing.com> <20200529185052.GA62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200529185052.GA62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: AEA8BF42A863CF65779F2B9548F63BAAD5D686750B1C3E4891585E983A1F90E62000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8j9BmlmHRPGAS_hpbn4DDNIap68>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 19:04:13 -0000

Seems like a well-balanced consideration Toerless, which is definitely not
what was attempted with IPv8.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:tte@cs.fau.de]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 11:51 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>om>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 05:36:11PM +0000, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > Sounds like another call for IPv8 - we had that same discussion back around
> > Y2K. It seems in keeping with networking technologies in general that it takes
> > about two decades for history to repeat itself.
> 
> IMHO Not quite. IPv4 in the mid-90th was like a global pandemic that triggered
> a mass extinction event for almost all other network layers. AppleTalk, DecNET,
> CLNP, X.25/CONP, XNS, SNA, ...  ("IPv4, the best pandemic ever" ;-)
> 
> IPv6 was designed to kill & replace IPv4, and even tried to enforce
> it with sunsetv4 later on, aka: follow your "history repeats itself" model.
> That was well intentioned but in hindsight unrealistic. I think we learned
> that what happened with IPv4 will never repeat itself and can not be engineered
> by standards decree.
> 
> Therefore, I don't think we could be successfull with periodic "kill & replace"
> IMHO we should have a strategy for evolution more like how e.g.: window 10 is
> managed, instead of repeating microsofts experience with the failing
> kill&replace through win7 and win8. Maybe first think about expansion
> through market segment profiles.
> 
> I for once wouldn't bother changing the Internet profile (RFC8200)
> right now, but just think what the best incremental additional profile
> for e.g.: controlled inter-networks would be that could be added incrementally
> to networks where Internet profile is already running. This friendly
> co-existance is already standard practice for hundreds of millions
> of users anyhow for the parts of network technology where we do not
>  need new standards.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:13 AM
> > > To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
> > > Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
> > >
> > > To me the main issue is that all the discussions about possible
> > > improvements of IPv6 steering headers (all the options out there)
> > > do nothing but monopolize precious industry cycles into tactical
> > > issues instead of also addressing the strategic problems with IPv6
> > > that go way beyond optimizing steering header encoding.
> > >
> > > IMHO, it is a misguided dogma to think that RFC8200 128 bit
> > > addresses IPv6 is a one-size-fits-all solution not only for
> > > what it was built for, the Internet, but also all arbitrary controlled
> > > networks - for the infinite future!
> > >
> > > IoT with IPv6 is an extreme pain (header compression, MTU).
> > > Most controlled networks do not even want global addresses (security,
> > > segment based app-gateway architectures, ...).
> > > 16-bit/32-bit/48-bit address sizes would be highly desirable.
> > > Even the 1980'th CLNP network protocol had variable sized addresses.
> > > IPv6 has not solved core problems to be even equal to L2 switching:
> > > plug routers together, get automatic connectivity, no bother about addresses.
> > > CLNP was a lot closer to that goal too.
> > >
> > > We have no "maintenance-only" constraint in IETF multicast,
> > > yet for unicast network layer we only permit maintenance or
> > > else you need to create another WG for just a sub-problem.
> > > How silly of a structure is that ?  And please do not create
> > > an IPv6.00001 working group, but think really about another
> > > instance of IPv6-NG, but this time backward compatible.
> > >
> > > And do not let a vendor force the hand of the IETF by developing
> > > and deploying proprietary solutions first. We know how bad that works from
> > > ongoing work in other layers, as well as historic examples.
> > >
> > > If we continue to proliferate this "one-size-fits-all" myth,
> > > then we are just continuing to extend our own version of
> > > a winchester mystery house and kill our industry.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:30:01AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > > > On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > My main point was that a list discussion of this type rarely reaches an acceptable outcome, and that an objective discussion at
> IETF
> > > is normally a better approach. Indeed resolving issues like this is exactly why we meet F2F at IETF.
> > > >
> > > > My experience with this is more that working group chairs are quite active in moderating discussions during in-person meetings,
> and
> > > really tend not to take responsibility for doing that on the mailing list. This produces the effect you???ve observed, that it???s
> easier
> > > to get consensus in-person than on the list.
> > > >
> > > > This is unfortunate; if the chairs took a more active role on the list, considering the cost of the time it takes for participants with
> > > coding jobs to follow multi-hundred-post repetitive arguments, we would probably do a better job of reaching consensus on-list.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this is a lot of work, and it???s sort of understandable that it doesn???t happen; my point is simply that if we want to
> be
> > > an effective _online_ organization, maybe we need to start doing things a bit differently.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > tte@cs.fau.de
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de