When the big dig was going on in Boston, an entire interchange had to be
constructed was used for some years and then torn down again. The cost of
the interchange was in the high tens of millions of dollars.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
Perhaps beating a horse that has long left the gate, since I'm responding
note earlier than the one I already responded to... But this issue really
to be settled carefully, IMO, and the modern renditions about this period
of time are typically off the mark:
On 10/8/2010 6:47 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
There simply wasn't a technically feasible plan on the table for
and intercommunication of IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
In addition to working our way through the IPv6 adoption and co-existence
process, I think it would be useful to do a little soul-searching and ask
ourselves if we're so smart, how come we couldn't design a next generation
protocol and work out a technically viable adoption and co-existence
Bob Hinden and I chaired a working group that was answering your question
IPv6 was adopted and while there were a number of very different proposals.
The community chose to drop the work and ignore the issue for 10 or 15
years. It happens that Deering's proposal came out of participation in our
working group, muttering something like "all this transition stuff is fine,
but when it's done, what we'll be left with will be ugly." So he designed
his elegant IP enhancement.
One bit of work that came out of the group was IPAE. More generally, it's
interesting to review documents of the competing proposals and note quite a
references to transition:
My point, here, is that the failures here were ones of goals, priorities
management, not technology. Quite simply, we did not pay attention to
issues such as market incentives and adoption barriers.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list