IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> Wed, 19 September 2007 00:51 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXnmk-0007Jk-DU; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:51:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXnmi-0007Eb-9Y for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:51:20 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com ([2001:4f8:3:bb::1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXnmc-0001DH-4u for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:51:15 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CCB11F63 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:50:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@sa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: 'IETF Discussion' <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:10:22 -0400." <46F04CCE.6010503@cs.utk.edu>
References: <11452.1189607641@marajade.sandelman.ca> <61769.1189616824@sa.vix.com> <3009e5840709121107o78cdd94fu907ab4de187b5d78@mail.gmail.com> <46E90E04.30000@piuha.net> <0F18F924-0B75-4F7C-9DCF-2759E9CECB61@cs.ucla.edu> <46EDFEC0.4060308@piuha.net> <07ea01c7fa05$e68ae030$b3a0a090$@net> <p06240600c315a807196a@[98.207.7.244]> <42439.1190137947@sa.vix.com> <46F04CCE.6010503@cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0.2; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:50:44 +0000
Message-ID: <40387.1190163044@sa.vix.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Subject: Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> Mumble.  It's hard for me to buy the idea of there not being a "core"
> portion of the Internet from which all public addresses are reachable. 

i was going to say, "but these addresses aren't public", but then i saw the
larger problem, which is that the internet's architecture has guardians who
are able to either buy into, or not, various ideas.  sometimes this is a
good thing, as with the wildcard *.COM that pointed to a sitefinder service.
other times this isn't a good thing, as occurred with NAT, firewalls, and
application layer gateways.  how to tell good from bad?  i think it's 
whether the guardians think the idea is a stupid waste of the proposer's
time, or whether they think it will do outright harm.

"harm" becomes the important term in that equation... is it harmful to let
someone else's idea go forward because it will dilute the need for a better
solution?  that's why a lot of people think DNSSEC DLV is bad -- simply that
it would take pressure off signing the root zone.  is it harmful to set up
a service that stops RCODE=3 responses from coming back when a nonexistent
name ending in ".COM" is looked up?  that's what i said when verisign added
a *.COM wildcard pointing to sitefinder.

without a consensus on what it means "to harm", we're sort of stuck.  ULA-G
(and therefore ULA-C) would allow consenting adults to exchange routes using
the whois and in-addr infrastructure that has historically been reserved for
"public networking".  lots of people, fearing leakage of "local" to "public",
think there is too much latent harm in this kind of centralized locality.  in
the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults' asses every
day and twice on sunday.  and that's the real problem here, i finally think.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email