[ipv6-wg] itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-ipv6 at c4inet.net
Thu May 24 16:41:29 CEST 2018
Leslie, On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:17:01AM -0700, Leslie wrote: >Can we elevate the level of discussion on this mailing list? It's one >thing to disagree over the facts and content, it's another to attack the >person (who has feelings!) behind the document. All I've read was a harsh critique of the document in question. I haven't read the original document so I can't speak to whether said critique is justified or not but if this is supposed to be a *technical* WG, a proposal or paper must be judged on its technical merit and not on the purported feelings of its author. And yes, that can include a judgement on their competence. If the discussion here is *not* supposed to technical but just political, feel-good wishy-washy tripe, I beg to be informed of this, so as to be able to unsubscribe this ML as a waste of my time. rgds, Sascha Luck >On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:10 AM James Morrow via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> >wrote: > >> i read this document with a mixture of astonishment, confusion and >horror. it's awful. > >> the document is utterly, utterly broken. it has no redeeming or >worthwhile qualities at all. > >> the only thing it's good for is an example of how #not# to do an ip >addressing plan based on errors and poorly articulated, mistaken >assumptions. it also shows beyond any doubt that itu should not meddle in >ip addressing because it has no competence or mandate to get involved in >this field. i've already seen far too many deeply flawed itu documents on >ipv6, such as the 2009? nav6 study. this one's much, much worse. > >> it's painfully obvious whoever wrote this junk has no understanding and >operational experience of how to design or deploy an ipv6 addressing plan >for any non-trivial ipv6 network. the document is not a sound piece of >work that makes any sort of technical or engineering sense. > >> the document is riddled with errors - far too many to list. it makes >ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact and does not provide any >references to justify these claims or let someone check them. i started to >write down these flaws and then gave up in disgust. why should i do >somebody else's homework for them? conflating ipv6 uptake rates with >developed/developing countries is yet another serious failing. these >things are completely orthogonal to each other. > >> the unstated assumptions are wrong too. > >> first of all, the notion of "special" ipv6 addressing plans for iot >devices is foolish. these don't need to be treated differently and >shouldn't be treated differently from anything else that's connected to the >internet - at least from an addressing perspective. > >> next, it's beyond absurd to suggest or imply there could be one >over-arching addressing plan that can be used and will work perfectly for >iot devices in any network or every use case. that's just basic common >sense. how you'd do that depends on the actual network and its >requirements. for example take smart lightbulbs: an addressing plan for >home use wouldn't be suitable for a large building (school, hospital, >office block, etc) or for a town's street lights. they'd all have >different (subnet) addressing plans that were suited to their specific >needs - number of lights, topology, security, planned expansion, >architecture(s), link-layer connectivity, redundancy / spofs, budget, >latency, bandwidth, interoperability and compatibility with existing >systems / networks (if any), access controls and so on. the document >doesn't even hint at any of those considerations. > >> the only thing to be done with this document is kill it. kill it with >fire. it's too far gone to be fixed or salvaged.. > >> imo, the wg needs to tell itu to stay well away from ip addressing and >leave this to the experts who actually build and run ip networks. >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]