Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

In every other email I see a concern about "Internet" or "Internet-wide"
behavior.

To me Internet is a collection of *independent* chain of Autonomous
Systems. As name indicates those domains are **autonomous** and can do
whatever they like to do with packets they carry. If they do not choose to
do right things customers will avoid them, there will be no revenue and
they will disappear from Internet map. Pure and simple.

I find it very bizarre that IETF is trying to be a judge or policer to
dictate on what each AS can or can not do in their own network. Moreover it
also apparently is putting least common denominator rule which states that
all 50000 ASes should do MUST only be limited to what the weakest AS can do
with either old or incapable vendors to support innovation.

I was apparently very wrong assuming for all those years that IETF focus is
to make sure that protocol extensions we define are as best as we are
collectively able to do .. rather then community to worry what hardware
vendors will manage to support or not support in what we define.

So what will happen ... we will either have waves of proprietary features
which will be hard to interoperate even within single AS or that definition
of such things will take a spin outside of IETF via various forums,
consortium, foundations etc ... Do we really all here endorse such
direction ?

Have a great weekend,
Robert.



On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 22/04/2017 08:09, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > ​Hi Ole,​
> >
> >
> >> That does in no way stop anyone from proposing _new_ work. Of any sort.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ole
> >>
> >
> > ​Very true ! Anyone can propose anything in IETF.
> >
> > But with the text additions which I have seen here recently the bar to
> move
> > from individual's draft proposal to WG doc then via all LCs to Standards
> > Track RFC just went up significantly higher especially for SRH and EH
> > elements. ​
> >
> > And that's my point.
>
> But *our* point, for some definition of 'our', is that by making the
> Internet-wide situation clear, we are in fact clearing the way for careful
> definition of local-use mechanisms. At the moment, as we've clearly seen
> from discussion of the SRH, we simply can't have that discussion because
> of the unfortunate ambiguity of RFC1883 and RFC2460. Truly, the quicker
> we get that settled and approved by the IESG, the quicker we can look
> seriously at draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion.
>
> You might ask yourself why no IPv4 options have been defined since 2007
> (Quick Start) and before that, 1997 (Router Alert). The same reason: they
> don't survive a trip across the Internet.
>
>     Brian
>
>