Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

otroan@employees.org Wed, 07 June 2017 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 3109612EB48; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 3epgZwPan3PF; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1D612EB4B; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2017 09:43:58 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE8AD788D; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=R01F5DlzKDZLJ8/OkMo01Zd1ApM=; b= DC/Bj8jA+JMymSnL2bXQbp/lzqdP7vQmxGvE2G6djdniIWB2kRorPGGNSYOu4BgU Uas754f9O6buVdk+p1KoiHaLeUtk/qAV7Kp4EsA4gn/k/rKM+T+lDDAS7/P3hHUN zyOs5DpTlEHee3Gu4oTUUgP1ctRFbKb/Ir5E8eliW6Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=KIhBn/CMD2hQbiew4gAlpRX OOq6dKWgTNCduGSM9YuEHTOPmftKiieU5zcdCJFVToXl5V3CLK8IdyaQa40IdQAB KwJBVWomMZxPGOk/dIc5gJzTTeFj8JlkNk7WF6AJh02S8ou+Z7sMLWzFEVAyX06R cyobNyAFLxfO7yqlNASg=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (219.103.92.62.static.cust.telenor.com [62.92.103.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5617ED788B; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9458ECE1C14D; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:43:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <C3786A24-EC9D-4C9E-AB21-04DDA1ADFE0B@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5B4C9C97-2BD5-4342-A57E-BB3AD495F38A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:43:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=ryNKJ9EmsEC-00JLjJdygowi6irzvw5QfkxBusLjfn9A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wp72j-yOsR8C=iqS+dX14wLwthAtOTvD5ugj_NQ=NQag@mail.gmail.com> <8be34ef8-557f-652e-0d2f-f1a1e008bffd@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0d-BVeG6ceU=F4Jd864SFj6msofeOOi8GAcPxOLsA9dA@mail.gmail.com> <e892e15f-3479-8099-0d72-41fe18ecabb8@gmail.com> <CAEmG1=ryNKJ9EmsEC-00JLjJdygowi6irzvw5QfkxBusLjfn9A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lxpOpwQKZw0TrjisrE6X1pTaSdM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:44:03 -0000

> Many of the arguments against this draft seem to
> be of the form "this is bad because it might allow
> uninformed people to make bad decisions which
> could have bad outcomes."  I find this line of reasoning
> to be somewhat disturbing.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, early man, out hunting for food
> using his typical tool, a blunt club.  Along comes Thag,
> with a sharpened stick, ready to join the hunt.  Early
> man looks at it and says "wait...that looks dangerous;
> someone could use that the wrong way, and hurt
> themselves, or potentially hurt me.  Rather than
> take that risk, and potentially learn new, more
> efficient ways of getting food, let's just ban it
> now, before anyone gets any new ideas."
> We could still be out on the plains, beating
> our meat with blunt clubs instead of learning
> new ways of hunting.  We shouldn't fear progress,
> even if it comes with a few roadbumps and bruises.
> 
> This draft isn't saying you *have* to use a bit boundary
> other than /64; it's simply saying you have the *option*
> to do so, if you like.  It's giving people the flexibility to
> try new combinations out; some of them may be ill-advised;
> a few warriors may come back with one less limb, having
> discovered the _pointy_ end goes towards the prey.  But
> on the whole, the potential for advancement would seem
> to outweigh the risks of people maybe doing something
> stupid here and there.
> 
> I support this draft for its ability to look beyond the
> classful box, to a world in which creative new possibilities
> open up before us, enabling new and unusual addressing
> models and the potential for discovering new network
> topologies we'd never considered before.
> We shouldn't let ourselves be ruled by the fear of what
> someone *might* do, and hold ourselves back from the
> chance to progress and expand outside of our current
> box.
> 
> Let's bring innovation back to the Internet.

I believe that innovation in the IP layer hinders innovation other places in the stack (aka the Internet).
A core principle of the Internet architecture is to keep the waist of the hourglass/wineglass narrow to allow for Innovation above and below.

Best regards,
Ole