Dave Crocker wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:53:00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So the death of IPv4 isn't going to happen with a bang. More like
a protracted series of whimpers
One of the great dangers of having a history of success is the way it
blinds us to new ways to fail.
In the case of IP addressing evolution, the blindness is that our
community presumes that transition to IPv6 is inevitable. Hence, we
have done a very poor job of providing compelling benefits for users
and admins. We have a grand promise -- and frankly it often sounds a
lot more like religious fervor -- about eventual benefits, but no
claim of immediate benefit that grabs operations folks by their gut,
driving them to adopt this change.
[snip]
Or perhaps the real problem was that what has been happening with
NATs, et al, is fine but we that have preferred to tout our idealized
solution and ignored market pragmatics.
Please forgive me for noting that this kind of error is classic among
organizations that have had major successes and, therefore, believe
that their internal intelligence is greater than that of the markets.
A small variation on this error is when it is from the aggregation of
successful companies. The obvious example is OSI.
This happens over and over again with people who work on some
specific technology, like infiniband (just for one example).
People who are close to it think it's great, while others who
are outside of it think that they drank too much kool-aid.
Seems to be related to tunnel vision AFAICT.
--
~Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf