no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not
operationally feasible".
Given the stunningly successful deployment of IPv6 ten years after it
has been standardized, I can see how you would say this.
and somehow the RIRs are going to fix this by changing the default
address allocation size? as far as I knew this was the least of IPv6's
problems.
IPv6 is fascinating in how it has inherited many of the problems of
IPv4 but in a way that isn't backwards compatible with IPv4. As such,
it shouldn't be too surprising that the same operational
considerations that apply to IPv4 also apply to IPv6.
it wouldn't be surprising if it were true. but it's not true in general.
also, I suggest that the RIRs are only considering operations from a
narrow point-of-view.
The narrow point of view that says the network should actually work,
yes. The RIRs are comprised of folks who provide or use Internet
services. As such, they do sort of want the Internet to function,
even if that functioning is aided by violations of IETF holy writs.
perhaps, but they might have a different idea of "functionality" than
their customers. if we're trying to balance the interests of ISPs
against those of users, somehow a body that consists of mostly ISPs
doesn't seem like the place to do it.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf