ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

2000-12-21 13:30:02
>> Excellent.  We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.

From: Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>
>unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset.  e.g. the larger
>address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
>the increasing number of routes.

>and i am not 'taunting' but trying to see how the hell we can solve some of
>the serious problems we have today and not take them with us to the v6 land
>of milk and honey, e.g. the multi6 discussion.

>if we don't get much smarter quickly, we'll just be making the same mess on
>a larger (in one dimension) scale.  we need to take a very serious look at
>8+8 again.  we need to be open to other good ideas.

You are absolutely right Randy. Unfortunately the coda for the IETF these days is "Rough Consensus and Shipping Code". One of the biggest problems these days is that we have people demanding backwards compatibility with things that don't really exist yet in a meaningful way. We are becoming more and more like the ITU these days.

Several WG's such as SIP have engineers complaining about tiny little changes in a specification that would affect *their* code. So we can't fix a known problem in the spec even though hardly anyone is using this stuff yet.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>