Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfIPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfPosted May 3, 2007 7:28 UTC (Thu) by Gunner (guest, #1448)Parent article: IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself
I don't really get all this hostility towards the IETF.
Why did they implement this at all? Shouldn't they have realized that it was a mistake and say no, we choose to skip this part. Or at least limit it in some way? After all, those who implemented it probably had just as much experience in the nitty-gritty details of networking(or more) than the academic people at the IETF.
If this is a serious problem(and it appears to be just that), then the IETF and those who implemented it share an equal blame, imo.
(Log in to post comments)
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 9:01 UTC (Thu) by dw (subscriber, #12017) [Link] I more or less agree with you, but I'd be quicker to believe that the IETF is in fact blameless in providing a standardized protocol that can do all the same things as its predecessor. Sure, source routing is bad on the Internet, but how many IP networks exist outside of the Internet?* This header might be the make-or-break for some large private company that would otherwise have stuck with IPv4.
The fact that this was enabled by default in multiple OSes is funny if nothing else. It's exactly the reason we're still "moving towards" IPv6, so fun stuff like this can be found.
Nobody is to blame. The standards people are doing what standards people do best (producing standards that appear to contain as much noise/dross as content) and the programmers are doing what the programmers do (writing code for fun, worrying about the more boring parts like security later).
David.
* = If you reply to this with something like "well omg lol they should stop using source routing" then I will find you and kick you in the ass very hard.
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 9:50 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I agree with you completely. This IETF bashing is proving very silly. IPv6 is a pretty solid job, considering what it's up against, and the only reason it's still a work in progress is because nobody wants it really yet.
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 13:55 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] well omg lol they should stop using source routing!
*WHAM* Ouch!
No, I agree 100% :)
Private IPv6 networks?? Posted May 6, 2007 13:06 UTC (Sun) by dthurston (subscriber, #4603) [Link] Sure, source routing is bad on the Internet, but how many IP networks exist outside of the Internet?Isn't the point of IPv6 to prevent a need for private IP networks? Sure, some organizations might want private networks for security, but I find it hard to believe that there are any that are so big they can't use IPv4...
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 10, 2007 13:30 UTC (Thu) by rogblake (guest, #18258) [Link] Actually, I intend to stick with IPV4 indefinitely as I see absolutely no need for IPV6. I simply have no intention of learning or using this unnecessary new protocol. (New Linux distributions seem to have it enabled by default, first thing I do on a fresh installation is to get rid of IPV6.)
Of course the day may come when it is no longer feasible to use IPV4, but given the overall slow rate of adoption I'll most likely be retired and off of the internet by then.
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 12, 2007 12:58 UTC (Sat) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] So I guess you belong to the 4.5% of human population that owns 74% of all IPv4 addresses then, namely the USA. Well, lucky you.
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 13, 2007 9:19 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] so it sounds like more of the unused address space needs to be allocated (and some of the early allocations to companies should be reclaimed)
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 10:01 UTC (Thu) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] It's a lot easier to shout at IETF for doing wrong and try to hide the fact that you haven't seen this problem either for the last 10 years. People can rant what they want, but almost everybody has been ignoring IPv6. It seems that only recently people start taking some interest in it, probably because it's inevitable that we have to switch to IPv6 in the next few years.
And the fact that everybody is so upset about this bug IMHO shows the relevance of the IETF...
Hostility towards the IETF Posted May 3, 2007 16:45 UTC (Thu) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] I think a lot of the hostility towards the IETF is because it _used to be_ the place to go to do real technical standardization work, including developing new protocols and fixing problems; with (hopefully) little or no politics involved
Then 1995 happened, and the Internet became big business, and the IETF has since been infested with commercial/competing interesting and has fallen afoul of most other technical standards bodies. Just look at all the crap that OSI/ITU/etc has issued over the years, almost all of which is irrelevant and unimplementable. Witness the insanity of ISDN (or pick any of a dozen other "standardized" protocols that really weren't).
So I think the hostility is mainly from those who remember the "Good old days" of the IETF. We want the IETF to be the technology leader it was perceived to be when the Internet protocols were created (TCP/IP) - with the clarity and technical focus that it used to have.
I think Paul Vixie nailed it on the head when he said that the IETF was no longer relevant: Open Source software has become the way to meet the the implementation requirements for the IETF, and as such, it basically sets the standard. All the IETF really does at this point is rubber stamp what the open source software is actually implementing, maybe with a little formalization thrown in to make things more orthogonal, but that's about it.
Anyway, my 2 cents...
Hostility towards the IETF Posted May 3, 2007 22:17 UTC (Thu) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886) [Link] Open Source software has become the way to meet the the implementation requirements for the IETF, and as such, it basically sets the standard.Open Source isn't the first to set standards by writing code that then becomes standard. Just look at the old proprietary Unixes and Microsoft. Yes, Open Source makes it a little bit better, but it would surely be better still to work with the IETF to develop the standards before, or possibly with, the code.
Hostility towards the IETF Posted May 10, 2007 10:19 UTC (Thu) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link] Yes, Open Source makes it a little bit better, but it would surely be better still to work with the IETF to develop the standards before, or possibly with, the code.No, that would be a disaster. Stuff like CWMP happens when you standardize too early - protocols with many flawed ideas that become obvious when you later reach the implementation stage. For example, CWMP's SOAP bindings are so messed up that no vendor is using standard libraries, which was the goal of using SOAP. If they'd waited to implementation stage, this would have been obvious.
|
|||||||||||||