Re: Using IPv8 Addressing with IPv6

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
> To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at unety.net>
> Cc: Simon Higgs <simon at higgs.com>; cls at flywheel.com <cls at flywheel.com>;
> domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org>; List at giaw.org
> <List at giaw.org>; ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org>; discussion-draft at giaw.org
> <discussion-draft at giaw.org>
> Date: Sunday, July 19, 1998 2:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Using IPv8 Addressing with IPv6
>
> >At 03:34 PM 7/18/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
> >>What types of discussions will you be censoring ?
> >
> >I don't think I used the word "censor". Every email list has a topic, and
> >the topic of the mailing list of the Internet Engineering Task Force is
> >things that pertain to the engineering of the Internet. Every mailing list
> >has someone who manages it, and someone whose responsibility it must be to
> >assure that it stays to its topic. In the case of the IETF list, I, the
> >chair of the IETF, and the designated stuckee for that task.
> >
>
> OK...that is good to know....for some reason I thought that
> the IETF was a much larger organization...I would have thought
> that more people would be involved in such activities...this
> reminds me of the IANA...people think it is a huge government
> agency....when they find out it is basically one person, Jon Postel,
> they do not want to accept that reality...of course, that is now
> going to change and I have a feeling the IETF will also be
> changing...do you agree ?
>
> >I should think that this would not be news to you. You have been removed
> >from many lists for carrying on off-topic discussions. gTLDs, Who doesn't
> >like whom, and why they don't like them, are not engineering issues. They
> >are off-topic, and inappropriate to a list of several thousand people
> >looking for engineering content.
> >
>
> Yes, some of the IETF members like to try to demonstrate
> their power over the Internet by engaging people in discussions
> while working behind the scenes to have people removed
> from lists...then, they seem to get pleasure in pointing out a
> limited part of the story...it is very similar to what one might
> expect from a street gang of juvenile delinquents who run
> someone's car off the road and then run around reporting that
> the person is involved in numerous traffic accidents...what
> has been amazing is that the IETF "thugs" will openly tell
> people they do this sort of thing and the IETF adults seem
> to endorse and reinforce the behavior...this has not served
> to improve the image of the IETF...when the average adult
> looks at the entire picture it becomes very clear...it is a sad
> picture indeed...

  Yes.  We have noticed this disgusting behavior on several occasions from
some groups within the IETF from time to time.  I wouldn't call it the norm,
but it does occur more frequently than it should.  People are people and there
is
really no method of controlling this behavior adequately.  What is even more
disgusting is that allot of this behavior comes primarily from the IETF
leadership
and is condescending to say the least and non-productive as well.  This behavior

pattern doesn't bode well for the IETF.

>
>
> >As to the set of things you mention, I am not aware of an internet draft or
> >a mailing list for the discussion of that subject. I have little doubt that
> >you have created such a list. There is nothing wrong with starting an
> >engineering discussion on the IETF list, although I should think that it
> >might start out with a proposal, in the form of an internet draft
> >describing the protocol you describe as "IPv8". I would expect, as most
> >discussions do, that the discussion would in short order move to a list
> >specific to the subject. You should be aware, however, that the IP version
> >number 8 was assigned to Paul (Tsuchiya) Francis' PIP proposal; you really
> >should request an IP version number from the IANA, so that there is no
> >question of interoperability.
> >
>
> Getting back to the topic of the discussion. I was asking
> about using the rightmost 48 bits of the IPv6 address fields.
> Is it your understanding that the IETF IPv6 "engineers"
> are going to leave those 48 bits untouched, undefined, etc. ?
>
> Do the IETF IPv6 engineers expect that packets will arrive
> at an aggregated provider with 48 bits still to be considered
> for routing inside of that provider ?
>
> If your answer to both of these questions is yes, then we
> can end this thread and I will thank you for your input and
> assurances that the "lower 48" will be useful for what is
> commonly called IPv8 Addressing.

  These questions should be pretty simple for Fred to obtain an adequate
answer or he should be able to point you the the "Chair" of the IETF standards
group for IPv6 development that can provide an answer.

>
>
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com