North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: the iab simplifies internet architecture!

  • From: Fred Baker
  • Date: Fri Nov 11 14:42:46 2005
  • Authentication-results:; [email protected]; dkim=pass (message from verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2295; t=1131738634; x=1132170834;c=nowsp; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;; [email protected]; z=Subject:Re=3A=20the=20iab=20simplifies=20internet=20architecture!|From:Fred=20Baker=20<[email protected]>|Date:Fri,=2011=20Nov=202005=2011=3A41=3A34=20-0800|Content-Type:text/plain=3B=20charset=3DUS-ASCII=3B=20delsp=3Dyes=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit;b=GfL5DQuTaLPv8NFXbwFnOjvMx+Nm/0AVqmXbky725ZdxjQcvrW6rS2CiGU02hbTM4dBPT9UZ/8g8nTMCtHnUkkn11J/jpqbfVw+kT6HrvmG8MH2F8FzkU72HCbjnrv1Drli6m4TOKkTiyPYKAEQvURP5W49NMTDOPVj/RU2A+qU=

yes, a specific member of the IAB said that. A few moments ago, I was chatting with the chair of the IAB, who wondered out loud whether he had noticed everyone else on the IAB edging away from him (something about lightning strikes emanating from the dagger-eyes of fellow IAB members I think) and observing that in the viewpoint he was on his own.

But your comment was not "PN, member of the IAB, said something clueless that the rest of the IAB disagreed with", nor did your subsequent comment

On Nov 11, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but it will be a classic. if you can get and edit it, send it to boing boing or /.
Pearls before swine.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their opinion of talking to us operators.
distinguish between the IAB, the IESG, the IETF, ISOC, and or any of the other acronyms that start with the letter I.

Yes, the experience of communicating between groups with different expertise can be brutal, and the brutality goes both directions. A classic example relates to discussions I have with various military agencies and developing countries on their issues, and when I pursue solutions to same get comments from some members of this community (note the lack of broad-brush over-generalization) that "we don't need that so it is a stupid idea". Well, if one is running a static fiber core and has effectively infinite bandwidth everywhere with very high reliability, it probably is. It's hard to run fiber to a geosynchronous satellite - that's a lot of glass, at a minimum.

I would suggest that we drop the overgeneralizations, in which "PN" becomes "The I*", drop the disrespectful associations ("pearls before swine"), and drop the tone. Guys, we're all in this together, and it would be better if we spent a nanosecond thinking about how to get along.

On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

None that I have spoken with.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
opinion of talking to us operators.
i imagine you speak with the one i was quoting rather often, though you were not there when it was said. i was. ask others who were there, pitsburgh ietf, a meeting between ipv6 chairs, iesg members, rirs, and a few ops. a current member of the iab specifically said, and i quote again, since you seem to have missed the rest of my paragraph,

operators won't accept the h ratio because they don't
know what a logarithm is.

while the ietf mouths a lot of words about wanting to hear from, and get participation from, operators, the actual experience is pretty brutal. is from the current issue of acm sigcomm's ccr, where aaron falk also has a piece. i play curmudgeon and he pollyanna.