----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
One person's paranoia is another's experience. Surely you will admit that
firewalls, NATs and interception proxies exist, that they do harm
interoperability, and that many of them act without the consent of their
users
and routinely change traffic payloads on the fly?
It is widely reported that 80% of all IPv4 equipment never touches what
some people define to be the IPv4 [legacy|toy|government] Internet.
Are you discussing standards for the majority (80%) or the minority (20%) ?
If current trends continue, and more and more of the islands that make
up the 80% become privately connected via 2002:<IPv4>:0000:<IPv8>
and native <IPv8>, this may be one more reason to work on standards
that most of the people can use.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
2002:<IPv4>:0000:<IPv8> vs. 3FFE:<IPv6>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
Is the goal to work on standards that are widely used, or only used
by a narrow part of the population ?
Should people set up separate standards bodies working in the
new address spaces and new TLDs (http://www.New.Net) ?
That may allow the 80% to focus on 100% of their own needs.
As for the 20%, it looks like they are covered.
Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
BIZ World
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
