[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] A bit off topic: Trouble in Paradise? From:[Fwd: Use of IP6.INT]
All,
I realize this fwd is slightly off topic so please excuse. But it
does have
some obvious relevance here.
I have been participating on the IPv6 related IETF efforts. It seems
that
there is some "Trouble In Paradise" with the ICANN, ITU and IETF
on some issues. (See fwd'ed text)
It seems that when Esther had her interview with CBS online after
Santiago
she spoke too soon. Of course, she really know this but was doing some
PR prep work as several IETF IPv6 folks including myself had informed
her
prior to that interview with CBS online. I find this goes to
creditability of
Esther Dyson herself as well as ICANN in general. Not to mention
misleading
many folks of what the future brings with high speed internet.
To date IPv8 is much farther along (A private Effort) that the IETF's
IPv6, as IPv8 is in broad deployment and has none of the problems
well known to IPv6. As a point of interest in inaddress translation
with Dynamic DNS, I wonder if Esther Dyson has the straight scoop,
or knows what is what from a technical point of view?
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Thomas,
You did not address the need in the interim to support IPv6.INT until
next generation products can use .arpa or whatever.
You say its minimal. Its not. We do not want to send out patches with
our first releases of Ipv6.
You ignored all that mail in your response.
Also continually in IPv6 trade-offs as an AD you keep saying we can make
the change the pain is minimal. Lets get this straight we are deploying
IPv6 and any change that affects shipping software is NOT MINIMAL
ANYMORE.
Besides it sounds like its really not the IETFs decision to blow
ipv6.INT away.
I am already speaking offline with others and there is a political issue
here too. If I do not see the IETF support the issues raised by Bill
Manning and several implementors on this list we will use our own
implementors lobby with the ITU or ICANN to protect our investment.
Is that what you want?
The IETF has to sometimes do what the implementors want.
And don't bullshit us. The IETF and ITU don't get along and the IETF is
very nervous about the new power of the ITU via ICANN. Lets not appease
any needs the IETF has by throwing a sacrifical lamb being IPv6.
Also I think its time the vendors started lobbying their interests
wherever to make sure the Internet infrastructure is not routed with
phone numbers etc. via ITU thought processes. The IETF is a great
STANDARDS BODY. But quite frankly the vendors and consumers have a
great interest in the Internet staying the way it is and moving forwared
into the next millenium. I don't the IETF is the org to influence and
put pressure on the political processes to cover our butts. I think we
need more powerful and connected leadership to keep our interests in
tact.
Fine to make a recommendation. But you should stay out of the business
of keeping the Internet running or start working with the vendor
community. Maybe this is an Internet Society issue.
The IETF is simply not qualified to WIN the political battle.
There are folks on the IESG and IAB who are qualified but the fact that
they are having to play the social and consensus game of the IETF is
probably holding them back from fixing the root issues of stewardship of
the Internet.
regards,
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------