ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: US DoD and IPv6

2010-10-06 06:53:15

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Michel Py wrote:

Noel Chiappa wrote:
The interesting question, of course, is whether (and if so, when) the
IETF
will deign to notice this reality - or will it continue to prefer to
stick
its collective fingers in its ears and keep going
'neener-neener-neener'.

Keith Moore wrote:
Do you actually have a point to make, Noel, or are you just
taking pot shots at IETF again?

Look who's talking. Despite a brilliant mind and sometimes significant
contributions, you are one of the main persons behind the failure of
IPv6. The living example of the IETF ivory tower.

Has it occurred to you that, if it was not for your blind opposition to
NAT, we could be living in a world of 6to4 implemented in the ubiquitous
NAT box?

Why do you think I proposed 6to4 in the first place?   There was no vendor 
interest in putting 6to4 in NAT boxes.

For that matter, I also proposed a mechanism to allow applications to better 
cope with NAT between v4 and v6  (and by extension between v4 and v4) by making 
the NATs explicitly controlled by the endpoints.  There was no interest in that 
either.

Look what you have done: not only we have more NATv4 than ever, but now
we also have NAT46, NAT64, NAT464...whatever and all of these with heavy
ALG layers to make it more palatable.

I think you give me far more "credit" than I'm due.  

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf