On 12 nov 2007, at 19:14, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm saying "there is a problem, but IPv6 isn't the solution".
Assuming that we mostly agree on the problem, what is the solution
then, if not IPv6?
IPv6 is not perfect, but between availability and scalability to
levels required for the continued use of the internet for the next few
decades, I think it holds the best papers.
Does the IETF think that deploying IPv6 is necessary and in the best
interest of the Internet?
But that's been the subject of more wasted electrons here than I
care to
think about, and the answer is there are a *lot* of poeple who who
don't
think that "IPv6 is necessary".
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. There are ways to do
everything that you care enough to do with IPv4. The real question is:
would you want to?
I remember a time when we had created version 2.0 of some software. As
is common with software, it was full of bugs. We dutifully fixed a
great number of them, and version 2.4 (we skipped a few point releases
to indicate just how many bugs we squatted) was much, much better. But
the customers wouldn't have it: too many changes, too risky. And then
they started asking us to backport all the bug fixes to version 2.0.
Management actually made us do it, too. That was a miserable few
months; I don't recommend such an exercise to anyone.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf