Ark Engineering Task Force #64 Report
A parody summary of what went on at IETF64 in Vancouver.
Greetings network operators. At the AETF meeting #64, your Ark Builders have been terribly busy.
Sampling all the local beer Vancouver had to offer.
We have been critically reviewing our Ark Design Process.
It's currently believed there is "consensus" that the IETF needs a "radical change" in standards process, and that's at the root of why IPv6 hasn't been widely deployed yet.
Despite the naysayers who think the Ark Architecture Board should be more selective about the number and kinds of animals that will be brought upon the Ark, we will continue to consider every single animal for inclusion with the same criterion which will not include its utility, chances for survival in the new world, or similarity to other animals.
At the IAB plenary, many people stood up to ask the IAB to stop allowing such a large number of Work Groups to be created it seems each session. Many of these WG's are covering overlapping areas (there are four different kinds of mobile IP for example), and a frightening number never make it past their first actual WG meeting when the reality check from other IETF members comes crushing down on it. The suggestion was for IAB members to become personally involved in "BoF"s ("Bird of a Feather"), which are where WG's are born. The IAB's answer was basically "We're already doing that. Expect things to stay the same."
We entertained extensive discussion about what color the Ark will be.
At the PESCI BoF, it was suggested a comittee would be appointed to draft a proposed "Process Change Process", in answer to the community's apparent cry for Process Change. It is widely regarded a success of the IETF iconoclasty that the IETF is currently working on "Process Change Process" and will not enter the murky waters of "Process Change Process Change Process", which would be more like the color of the paint can, despite honest motions to the contrary. At the same time...the PESCI presentation itself was documenting the chosen form of Process Change Process Change Process.
And wether or not that comittee's work would be subject to community consensus.
I'm not joking, that was seriously argued for an hour.
As you can see, with such important work before the AETF, you can imagine why it might be taking a little while for us to get around to, you know, finishing the blueprints of your Ark, much less participating in its construction with you.
We realize the flood waters are rising every day, and there are predictions that the ARKv4 will no longer be sailable within our lifetimes.
IPv6, ostensibly the IETF's current focus, will give us enough IP address space to address several devices within every square angstrom of the surface of the planet earth (and IPv4, what you are using to read this document, will run out of addresses in something like 2015). As IPv6 is slowly deployed by more and more naive users, the routing tables of said protocol become more and more a swamp, threatening to overtake the IPv4 table's record. 2^32 possible addresses and therefore a much smaller likely ceilling on route table entries is scalable, if you enforce limits on prefix size. 2^128? There needs to be structure here, there needs to be some limiting factor on the routing table in clear defined language. There isn't.
To a better, broader Ark platform!
Chorus: "And the Universal Deployment of ARKv6!"
At all IETFs, there is a "Scotch BoF", where scotch is consumed in frightening quantity (reminiscent of a fraternity party). As each glass of scotch is consumed, a toast is made. Following each toast the entire rooms changes "And the Universal Deployment of IPv6!". This has left the realms of engineering and design, and has entered the status of a church. These people honestly believe that if they pray long enough before the IPv6 altar that operators will pick up the protocols and deploy them, building some grand new Internet.
It's sad. It's honestly sad.
At that PESCI BoF, in a room of 80 people, the chair asked for consensus. Does the IETF need a new process change process? he asked. 15 people voted for yes. 15 people voted for no. 30 out of 80 voted.
The majority of the IETF members are disinterested in the IETF itself.
And yet the vocal IETFers argue that process has throttled the IETF into stagnancy. That lack of network operator participation in the IETF is what keeps it from being operationally relevant.
If you were an operator, would you sign up for that trash?
IETF needs operator participation, yes, but it's not going to get it so long as it keeps being an environment that's hostile to them.
IETF's "country" needs a little of NANOG's "rock'n'roll" first.
IETF needs to become a community where gross wastes of time like these are neither condoned nor tolerated...rather than encouraged as it is today (in the name of "measuring consensus").
Yeah, I was in Vancouver, and Paris before that, and sompelace else before that. Don't ask, because you know the answer: I didn't enjoy it.
A parody summary of what went on at IETF64 in Vancouver.
Greetings network operators. At the AETF meeting #64, your Ark Builders have been terribly busy.
Sampling all the local beer Vancouver had to offer.
We have been critically reviewing our Ark Design Process.
It's currently believed there is "consensus" that the IETF needs a "radical change" in standards process, and that's at the root of why IPv6 hasn't been widely deployed yet.
Despite the naysayers who think the Ark Architecture Board should be more selective about the number and kinds of animals that will be brought upon the Ark, we will continue to consider every single animal for inclusion with the same criterion which will not include its utility, chances for survival in the new world, or similarity to other animals.
At the IAB plenary, many people stood up to ask the IAB to stop allowing such a large number of Work Groups to be created it seems each session. Many of these WG's are covering overlapping areas (there are four different kinds of mobile IP for example), and a frightening number never make it past their first actual WG meeting when the reality check from other IETF members comes crushing down on it. The suggestion was for IAB members to become personally involved in "BoF"s ("Bird of a Feather"), which are where WG's are born. The IAB's answer was basically "We're already doing that. Expect things to stay the same."
We entertained extensive discussion about what color the Ark will be.
At the PESCI BoF, it was suggested a comittee would be appointed to draft a proposed "Process Change Process", in answer to the community's apparent cry for Process Change. It is widely regarded a success of the IETF iconoclasty that the IETF is currently working on "Process Change Process" and will not enter the murky waters of "Process Change Process Change Process", which would be more like the color of the paint can, despite honest motions to the contrary. At the same time...the PESCI presentation itself was documenting the chosen form of Process Change Process Change Process.
And wether or not that comittee's work would be subject to community consensus.
I'm not joking, that was seriously argued for an hour.
As you can see, with such important work before the AETF, you can imagine why it might be taking a little while for us to get around to, you know, finishing the blueprints of your Ark, much less participating in its construction with you.
We realize the flood waters are rising every day, and there are predictions that the ARKv4 will no longer be sailable within our lifetimes.
IPv6, ostensibly the IETF's current focus, will give us enough IP address space to address several devices within every square angstrom of the surface of the planet earth (and IPv4, what you are using to read this document, will run out of addresses in something like 2015). As IPv6 is slowly deployed by more and more naive users, the routing tables of said protocol become more and more a swamp, threatening to overtake the IPv4 table's record. 2^32 possible addresses and therefore a much smaller likely ceilling on route table entries is scalable, if you enforce limits on prefix size. 2^128? There needs to be structure here, there needs to be some limiting factor on the routing table in clear defined language. There isn't.
To a better, broader Ark platform!
Chorus: "And the Universal Deployment of ARKv6!"
At all IETFs, there is a "Scotch BoF", where scotch is consumed in frightening quantity (reminiscent of a fraternity party). As each glass of scotch is consumed, a toast is made. Following each toast the entire rooms changes "And the Universal Deployment of IPv6!". This has left the realms of engineering and design, and has entered the status of a church. These people honestly believe that if they pray long enough before the IPv6 altar that operators will pick up the protocols and deploy them, building some grand new Internet.
It's sad. It's honestly sad.
At that PESCI BoF, in a room of 80 people, the chair asked for consensus. Does the IETF need a new process change process? he asked. 15 people voted for yes. 15 people voted for no. 30 out of 80 voted.
The majority of the IETF members are disinterested in the IETF itself.
And yet the vocal IETFers argue that process has throttled the IETF into stagnancy. That lack of network operator participation in the IETF is what keeps it from being operationally relevant.
If you were an operator, would you sign up for that trash?
IETF needs operator participation, yes, but it's not going to get it so long as it keeps being an environment that's hostile to them.
IETF's "country" needs a little of NANOG's "rock'n'roll" first.
IETF needs to become a community where gross wastes of time like these are neither condoned nor tolerated...rather than encouraged as it is today (in the name of "measuring consensus").
Yeah, I was in Vancouver, and Paris before that, and sompelace else before that. Don't ask, because you know the answer: I didn't enjoy it.