Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)

> From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>

    > the "we don't need to change from v4, ever" attitude is simply
    > absurd. 

Ahem. Let's go to the tape:

    >>> if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour
    >>> look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too,
    >>> but I'd rather make lemonade.

I'm hardly sugessting we live with the status quo.

But I see that over a decade of failure still hasn't woken people up.

That's OK, I'm happy to let reality pound a few more spikes into people's
brains, since apparently nothing less is going to get through. (And
Marshall, I have to apologize - I guess it really did need your "small,
furry animal" spiel in order to get through.)

The rest of the world will just continue and increase their treatment of the
IETF as brain-damage, and their routing around it...

I am reminded of an old story about Ross Perot. General Motors (for
reasons that no doubt seemed good at the time) bought his computer
services company, EDS, and used stock to do it. Since Ross had been the
major owner of EDS, be became a large owner of GM, and was rewarded with
a seat on the board. As a member of management, and as somehow who had a
large chunk of his worth tied up in the company, he set out to see how
the company was doing. He was rather unhappy at what he discovered, to
say the least.

His pithy commentary on GM's then exceedingly lengthy and sclerotic new
car development process was unforgettable:

  "It takes five years to design a new car in this country. Heck, we won
  the Pacific War in four."

Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
*that* much time.

Windows 3.1! Pfui.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:36:05 +0700

Date:        Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)
    From:        [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
  | adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
  | *that* much time.

Hmm - the auto analogy is perhaps not a bad one.   Cars were invented
in what - about 1880?   And how long did it take before just about
everyone was using one?   Or even before they were really widespread?

Designing new stuff isn't that hard (IPv6 was done for all practical
purposes years & years ago now) - getting it widely adopted is an entirely
different problem and can take a very long time - which says nothing
at all about either the value of, or the need for, the new stuff.
Nor does it prevent their being plenty of people who are quite convinced,
for whatever reason, that the new stuff isn't necessary or useful, and
they're going to keep using the old forever.

kre

ps: it has been pointed out to me that in my last message I used Stanford's
class A as an example, when they have already renumbered and returned it.
That's great, and apologies for not checking before putting finger to keyboard.
The point doesn't alter though.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:57:04 +0900

Isn't it more productive than beating the dead horse?

If reasons are recognized, it will be useful information to
design alternatives, maybe by alternative standardization
bodies.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:38:37 +0100

It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
we are doing OK.

It is always good to learn from history, of course.

     Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:52:29 -0500

> It is always good to learn from history, of course.

That's funny.  I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15
years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new
routing & addressing architecture.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:27:55 +0100

>routing & addressing architecture.

any hint of what was dreamed at that time ? The real issue is here. We will 
certainly go THROUGH IPv6 just in order to get a /128 plan, on our way to 
the /256 one. The real issue is what is going to be the new routing 
architecture?
jfc

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:28:42 -0500

> the /256 one. The real issue is what is going to be the new routing 

That was a long time ago and we've been through quite an evolution in
our thinking, including (as Frank Kastenholz points out) realizing that
anything we did was going to have to last a long time -- no stopgaps --
and a lot of work on architecture that is still going on.  

swb

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:57:40 +0100

Dear Robert,
if only Cugnot's team had promoted cars .... As Harald put it wisely first, 
the organization and promotion is not upto IETF but to sales, Govs, 
operators, users, etc... IETF and ICANN are actually blocking IPv6 as it is 
widely perceived for  what it still is: a non-operational (if you compre to 
TV, mobiles, cars, McDonnald, Bible or CDs), not warranted technical 
upgrade. A suggestion, not a mass product.

Just point me one single site dedicated to a clear "Why, How Much and HowTo 
Switch to v6", for end-users.
If cars were still reserved to losers and technologists, I am not sure they 
would be widely used.
jfc

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:31:00 +0100

Hi,

There are a lot of sites with such information.

One good example in Spanish is www.6sos.org.

I'm working in a new one much much much more complete, to avoid needing to
"google" in hundreds of sites, and this will be in English (open to
volunteers to translate to other languages).

It will be hosted at www.ipv6tf.org and www.eu.ipv6tf.org (both already
working with the actual version, but not updated since a couple of months or
so). A lot of information is also published daily at www.ist-ipv6.org.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:57:40 +0100
> Para: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
> 
> Dear Robert,

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.