Subject: [arch-d] common synthesis

From: JFCM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:35:28 +0100

Dear Michael,
May be could you have sent me a mail/called me before involving me 
that much :-) !

>Actually, IPv8 would be IPv7. The reason there's no IPv5 is that 
>that was allocated to an experimental protocol. 7 is the next free number.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv5

As far as I understand from the indications obtained from people 
having lead the initial debate, IPv5 and IPv7 were two alternative 
approaches to the problem addressed by IPv6: IPv4 with a longer 
address size. You might ask Christian Huitema. Or the IRTF Chair.

>Michel - Jim Fleming's IPv8 (which he'd been advocating since 1998 
>or before) is vapourware (and nonsensical),

As far as I understood Jim, he has two propositions - structural and 
operational:
- to use available space in the IPv4 header to locate local address 
extension. I understand that several Linux projects did that too.
- a complex administration system to best use that space. Jim kept 
documenting it. IMHO he made the same mistake as the IPv4/IPv6 
current solutions: he wanted to regulate the address portion he added.

>and JFC Morfin can be most kindly described as delusional, not 
>technically clued up, and disruptive -

Please do not worry about this ad-hominem. Ad-homina are a common 
reaction of someone facing an opposition to something he takes (or is 
paid to take) for granted and has therefore no technical response to 
oppose, while he is genuinely shocked/worried so he does not want 
just to hit the delete key.

My IETF experience shows that it takes one to three years for points 
which started ad-homina against me to be either sometimes adopted, or 
more usually to be seriously discussed and to be left aside (because 
the IETF rough consensus based engineering prevents it to engage in 
multilateral approaches - what is the essence of my lead user 
vision). Everything being on line you can check.

>which is why he's had his posting privileges suspended from more 
>IETF mailing lists than I can keep track of.

I have been so far suspended from the WG-LTRU mailing list, I was 
leaving, due to a PR-action initiated by the owner of the 
[email-masked]. The point of contention was that this 
list is/is not the one we described in RFC 4646, and therefore is/is 
not an IETF list (I have been eventually banned from that list 
several months after having left it). I also have been banned from 
the main ietf list for having advertised and invited members there to 
a meeting organised with the Chair of my national ISOC Chapter. So, 
actually I have been actually banned from one list, on wrong terms.

>Your intelligence report is only as good as its sources.

Correct.

>  I think you can do better in terms of "decision makers".

I understand that the "decision makers" you allude to are people who 
are to decide of the option they are to invest some big money on?

At Monday 08/01/2007 21:15 +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote:
 >Dear Michael,
 >Unfortunately, I find your summary quite confused.  I don't even know
 >where to start from when trying to read it.  From my very personal
 >point of view, you seem to use some key terms in a way that make it
 >pretty hard for me even to imagine what you really try to mean with
 >them.  As an example, I have never heard that there would be any
 >established meaning for the tentative term IPv8; in fact, I have seen
 >various independent people used it in very different ways and to
 >denote very different architectural and even nonsensical concepts.

I agree with Pekka here.

You actually present three propositions: Jim Flemming's, mine, and 
the IETF one under debate, no bad :-) ! I suggest you keep discussing 
the IETF issue on this list. I will explain you my position directly 
(I also suggest you contact Members of the ITU/SG 17).

I agree that the "IPv8" solution has unfortunately most probably a 
future. I am sure no one will help you here about it. As a myself a 
standardizer in other areas, I need to make sure that what we 
document can be supported under IPv4, IPv6, what you name MPLS6 and 
IPv8. So, the point interests me. I will try to see into it more 
precisely. I will then tell you off list what I may have found. Yet, 
please, fo not be in hurry.

You may also want to contact Chinese people who discussed IPv10. It 
is usually considered as an hoax, but I think it was more a way to 
float some Chinese loc/id vision, may be in a way similar to what I 
propose for IPv6.

 >>On 8 Jan 2007, at 01:41, Michel Gauthier wrote:
 >>- JFC Morfin thinks that over-complexity is a stable new situation,
 >>and that it must be analysed and addressed with dedicated
 >>architectural concepts (distributed autonomy and subsidiarity) in
 >>turn completing RFC 1958 by Brian Carpenter, and RFC 3439 by Randy
 >>Bush and David Meyer.

More or less, yes. But this goes with a normated model and 
more 
involved architectural considerations and experience. I will discuss 
that in a private mail. The IETF core values (RFC 3935) includes 
"decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of 
resources" that I do not share, at lease in the way the IETF 
currently understands them. The reason why they do not understand and 
oppose me.

 >>John Day and JFC Morfin advocate a network
 >>operating system as cement for the possibly differing and time
 >>scaled solutions.

I consider that the IETF defines protocols, not a structured network 
environment, and lacks an interoperating system.

 >>- IPv8: nobody wants it. It consists in keeping IPv4 addresses for
 >>NATs only, and adding NAT managed subaddressing. This solution
 >>would/will self deploy due to the expected increase of the price of
 >>IPv4 addresses.

I discussed that in several fora. This was both positive and 
negative. IMHA I think it is a possibility. I am not alone.

 >>- IPv6: the IPv6 address space in IPv6 headers using IPv6 ITU /3
 >>would be understood as a container for four orthogonal elements:
 >>header, routing, global identification, local extension. In
 >>addition routing management could be removed from the network and
 >>supervised at the edge as a multi-value added service extension of
 >>the DNS, based on situation reports from en-route switchers.

Kind of description of my position. However this is very "IETF" style 
because it simplifies a lot the nature of the address. I will send 
you some documents on this.

 >>- Jack-up (?): it consists in adding a routing namespace with
 >>different possible solutions, which are not fully clarified yet. It
 >>is the most debated proposition. One of its main points is to
 >>address GNP issues. HIP and SHIM6 seem to be the experience behind
 >>that solution. Can it be qualified as an "MLPS6" approach? There is
 >>thus far no complete description of the proposed idea, but a Draft
 >>could be written soon by its promoters.

This is confuse. May be should you subscribe to the RAM mailing list 
and digest what is discussed there?

 >>All this raises some questions:
 >>
 >>A. what are the risks involved in the IPv8 solution developing - it
 >>seems that some organisations may already use variations of it? How
 >>to block it, or to make it acceptable if it is unavoidable? Could
 >>someone want to seriously document it and its cons/pros as a Draft?

If this takes off, it will be a grassroots development; or may be a 
Chinese project as they have many NATs. As far as I understand the 
specs are pretty straight forward.

 >>B. what is the difference between the IPv6 and Jack-up proposition?
 >>Jack-up is about two structural name spaces (IPv6 + a totally new
 >>one?). IPv6 is about immediate support of three orthogonal
 >>namespaces at the edges without real change, where only one
 >>structured one is currently supported?

No. IPv6 is the current IETF proposition.
What you shorten here as "IPv6" is _my_ IPv6 proposition.

 >>D. The time scale is:
 >>- IPv8 is actually here already, but just not documented,
 >>- IPv6 is here, but would need the ITU to document its use of an
 >>IPv6 /3 to support it.

As far as I understand you, this is correct.

 >>No indication is given about a scenario for the jack-up
 >>proposition? It would require a WG to be created. It would produce
 >>different Drafts about the context, proposition, and transitioning.
 >>Then, industry should start developing applications, and test them.
 >>ISP and exchanges should subsequently start implementing them, and
 >>carrying out their own market tests. How many years would this
 >>represent?

I think this is more or less correct. But I suppose no one can give 
you a timing. However, if this is under some pressure it might go 
faster than usual. Yet, the decision is very important, so it may 
take time. This is why, as a lead user, I feel that the two first 
solutions are likely to happen because they could work now.

 >>E. Only JFC Morfin seems to insist on the routing path to be
 >>controlled by the sending end (upon receiving end data) and other
 >>routing added value services to users. It seems that the list only
 >>considers the network needs and not the user needs? He also seems
 >>the only one to call for a DDDS approach of the routing computation?

No: I did not follow the RAM discussion, but some others proposed 
parts of such a type of approach. As a lead user I am more interested 
into this. Also, and I have actually seen it implemented on 
international public services nearly 30 years ago, so I know its 
importance. This is also a good way to support externets (not an IETF 
concept yet: external network lookalike within the network).

 >>F. The US DoD has adopted IPv6 as per http://whitehouse.gov/pcipb .
 >>Several Telecos, including BT in England, are committed to MPLS for
 >>telephone services. China is expected to be rapidly a large user of
 >>IPv6 (or to study its own IPv10 hoax(?)/project(?)). The ITU
 >>development of NGN is supposed to be supported by IPv6. Moreover,
 >>the GENI test bed as well. Can these deployments, experimentations,
 >>and projects be affected by the problem that you are currently
 >>investigating? In particular, could the US Defense Department meet
 >>with congestion or technology follow-up problems? We therefore
 >>understand that this topic is vital for the e-economy of the USA,
 >>Europe, China, and India and will report it as such.

You call for pure divination here!

I understand that you want to tell people where to put their money 
and developers. As a lead-user I meet some of the questions you raise 
(in a different way since I am not the Pentagon). My problem is the 
connectivity and the interoperability of _my_ home corebox (and of my 
fellow users). IMHO this is far too early to discuss this. Even if 
for many this is a reasonable question.

Good luck.
jfc

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