[At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations

[JFC Morfin]

At 23:46 27/11/2008, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons
>for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people
>against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to
>the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms.
>With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key
>proposed feature of IPv6, disappears.

To tell you the truth I did not yet made my mind about what they 
exactly have in mind and what the implications. From what I grasp, 
they want this to be actually assessed?

So, my priority is to set-up a dialog space between IETF and Internet 
users and the IETF Internet standard process. I think it is pretty 
urgent because with IPv6, DNSSEC, etc. i feel that the polylogue 
between all the concerned parties become totally out of reasonable control.

>Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the
>Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days
>when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure,
>there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to
>be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the
>Internet.

There certainly were cons and pros. We should try first to seat and 
not to duplicate the cons and focus on the pros. But there is such a legacy ...

>I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen
>several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to
>launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own
>interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go
>ahead! Let the market decide what's best.

I do not think we are actually engaged in any "alternative DNS" 
(there never were alternative DNS except in IETF/ICANN fears and Vint 
Cerf ".biz" trick) but a progressive understanding of the meaning of 
ICANN ICP-3. france at large engaged into the community "dot-root" 
test-bed,  respecting the ICP-3 request. Our conclusion is that there 
is a unique virtual root matrix to be supported that corresponds to 
the distributed nature of the Internet. Also, that the current IETF 
vision is not ready to accept and support it, but that the technology 
can probably support it, as well as a progressive transition. But all 
that must now be worked on, discussed, proposed, verified, 
documented, tested along new ways of thinking adapted to our present 
time. This is NOT that easy! The problem is in the people heads, more 
than in the machines and protocols.

>Just:
>1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever

Correct. This is why we must stop the IPv6 political campaigning and 
replace it by s self-financing approach. I think this is possible. 
But the first thing is to convince ISOC that an ISOC IPv6 Users 
Chapter would really help discuss this. The IPv6 TF supports the 
idea. ISOC is afraid.

The motto should be "IPv6 what for?" instead of "someone must pay for IPv6"

>2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's Internet

I am afraid that IETF is currently precisly doing it unwillingly. 
This is where we need to help. Multitier Internet threat is 
everywhere. IMHO we can protect our freedom, but we need to 
understand what is our _user_ architecture. IMHO this is really what 
@larges should be at. Anywhay, I hope my IETF list will modestly help.

>3. don't impose your alternative network on me

I do not think there is any alternative nework. There is a mess. Who 
really knows today what IPv6 is?

Margaret Wasserman and Fred Baker try to specify 66NATs against a 
66HyperNATs diversity. It is probably a good idea in order to smooth 
the transition. However, what they probably show is that the very 
nature of the Internet is to be an InterNAT (however the word NAT is 
just for one of the functions to be required on Smart "Interboxes").

>4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly

:-) I was the one who started to field unlock monopolies. I was very 
happy the day I obtained the first "triangle", where traffic from 
three monopolies were mixed - together with private traffic (US, 
Belgium, Netherlands and ESA). That was more than 25 years ago. I did 
not expect the US deregulation to create something worst than telco 
monopolistic centralisation. I hope we can free the Internet from the 
US consortia decentralisation before I die :-)

jfc