[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue



At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps 
>>(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from 
>>the operation people and to let them participate in the decision 
>>themselves. ... <snip>
>
>Been there. Done that. Didn't work. This vast Moral Majority of the 
>Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other boxes 
>which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate in the 
>debate. ;-)

Let's at least try to be fair and realistic. There is a fairly large and 
vocal camp from tier 1 and tier 2 operators in the IETF which presumes that 
the needs of a backbone service provider are the only needs that are 
relevant in any network and go around blasting anything they don't need as 
"clueless". But not all tier 1/2 operators are represented or choose to 
speak publicly, and not all networks are tier 1/2 networks. I have a fairly 
long history of sitting in the room with people from certain tier 1/2 
operators who will tell me at dinner or in the hallway what they think 
about this or that, but are precluded from speaking for themselves publicly 
by the policy or culture of their employers. I'm not naming names, because 
that would be inappropriate (if they can't/won't speak for themselves 
because their employer doesn't want to tip a business hand, who am I to tip 
it for them?). But I guarantee you that they are present, and they don't 
necessarily agree with the vocal operators.

When it comes to tertiary operators and enterprises, let's face it. They're 
vastly under-represented, and perhaps not at all represented. If they were 
represented as completely as the Tier 1/2 operators are, we would routinely 
have meetings with multiples of 10K attendees. They don't come to IETF 
meetings. They read about them in Network World and Computer Week, they 
tell their vendors what they are willing to buy, and their vendors come 
talk about the features smaller operators and enterprises are asking for. 
The vendors take a beating from the operational elite, who tell us

  - we have no clue how to run a network
  - we have no idea what features a network needs
  - there is no deployed (pick your protocol that is perhaps inappropriate in
    a Tier 1 backbone) in the whole wide world
  - Specifically, there is no operational deployment of the diffserv
    architecture (having heard this extensively from the gentleman from 
Telstra,
    I wonder if he ever talks to the gentleman from Comindico that I spoke 
with
    last week; they seem to live on different planets)
  - That everything we produce and talk about is what we want to sell, not
    what the tier 1/2 operators or anybody else wants to buy.
  - That whatever we say is inherently invalid because we are vendors.

Interesting. Do we do these things for our health? Do we go generate 
features and then try to sell them to people? Do we keep beat our heads 
against the wall for a decade or more while there is no market and all 
problems are trivially solved using other technologies?

Are we that idiotic?

You know, I'd like to see a little more respect for people, and for the 
reports they make. Yes, it would be much better if operational staff from 
each of the Fortune 500 companies and larger tertiary operators came to the 
IETF and spoke for themselves. They don't, and that doesn't make their 
opinions or requirements irrelevant. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------