ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards large providerss

2000-08-24 19:20:02
Brian;

Thomas;

The
other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved
mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are
secondary.

Huh? Compared to IPv4 equivalent, all the three features of IPv6
are unnecessarily complex without necessary functionalities.

This is your opinion, not a statement of fact.

Of course, it is not a statement of fact, because it is not authorized
by the committee.

And, you take, for example, the following recent comment of Sean
literally:

: Itojun -
: 
: >o The site may use the address prefix: 3ffe:0501:ffff::/48.  The address
: >  prefix was curved out from WIDE 6bone prefix.  The site MUST be
: >  renumbered, before the site gets connected to the worldwide IPv6
: >  network.
: 
: Shouldn't IPv6's much-trumpeted stateless autoconfiguration and
: renumbering scheme take care of that, well, automatically?

that real world operators are so happy with much-trumpeted stateless
autoconfiguration and renumbering features of IPv6.

Wow!

IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary
enhancement to IPv4,

I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community
does as well.

That's a silly statement.

No it isn't.

For committees, of course, it isn't, because a committee can not
accept a statement of fact that the committee is silly.

                                                        Masataka Ohta