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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Fri, 29 May 2020 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816DA3A0E66 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_JSxh0c3n5X for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44A03A0E67 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 04THaHHK031113; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:36:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1590773785; bh=5tc3HJKOf4SfFmBvaEN8i+ulpTXMbRAcyjzNZGW7z+A=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uaO0Q1by+KoXvyE7ZH9oDsaLVxdyX9WMAft1jIjuJQ06GKdkIK85hu0805xGQx8iw TO98sx0RGduZoi5kt/XGwzhcx7UlKIQSxQylxJhHFqsaksQ/gArPE0sAgYY3jyVkpM o6J0Nzxf615KZwg9m5/063bX35AWvkAUBpRSdsZ64mpSyJXvwgnoGBNTOU8h3qIDcU jldyQ9te7+jU21MwSHMuwE2Y1W+yVlXmVWIvkdDFG4Zi3OwWOKvhp5TnvisBWfQTH1 nl0qvEz9q3xVqcox8EIvNnzp3wFB9bJy/T3MCmOQyQDOE45JSjm+dQTcYzsdDA4rKr TZ6N0Ag4QgIeA==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 04THaDEa030981 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 May 2020 13:36:13 -0400
Received: from ( by ( 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 10:36:11 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:11 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>, Ted Lemon <>
CC: 6MAN <>
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/UfLg
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 17:36:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: BF36EE9D1711356F8F838BECBB1B2949505FBDEB2FCE0D9AC75AE89F5E7E42002000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 17:36:37 -0000

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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:13 AM
> To: Ted Lemon <>
> Cc: 6MAN <>
> 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 <> 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
> >
> > Administrative Requests:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------