From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
That's because you aren't trying to write apps that operate across addressing
realm boundaries, and you're apparently not willing to listen to those who
are.
I am working on an application that works accross addressing realm
bondaries. It involves a global network of thousands clients and
servers on the public Internet talking to each other through NAT boxes,
firewalls, and all sorts of other nasty stuff to the tune of more than
51 million operations the day before yesterday. There is IPv6 support
in the code that seems to work in the sense of IPv6-only systems
talking to IPv4-only systems indirectly through servers that do both
IPv6 and IPv4.
That nasty stuff causes all kinds of real world trouble as opposed to
academic ivory tower empty talk and chest thumping. I and others
waste plenty of time every week trying to get people running clients
and servers for that application to fix their NAT boxes and firewalls.
A common firewall error regularly causes Mega-packet/day/site wastes
of bandwidth.
OTOH, you're quite willing to make abusive statements about things that
you don't understand.
I understand all to well what's going on here.
I used to live in a building that had dumbwaiters and garbage chutes. Both
were found to be dangerous. So they told people to stop using them. They
didn't try to outlaw them or to make them go away or pretend that they never
existed. And occasionally someone did try to use them. Fortunately, merely
discouraging their use was sufficient to eliminate most of the danger.
So why are you only repeating what you've said many times before instead
of writing an RFC that will repudiate and replace BCP 5?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com