> From: Nilsson <mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>
>> On this basis, it's a case of looking for the least-problematic
>> solution.
> Which is v6.
Yes, beating up on IPv4 has been such a success in getting IPv6 deployed,
hasn't it?
Let's dial the way-back machine back to 1994, when IPv6 was adopted - i.e. 17
years ago. (Pretty shortly we're going to be having IETFers who _weren't even
born yet_ when IPv6 was adopted, but I digress.) To hammer home just how long
ago that was, at that point in time:
- The latest and greatest product of Intel was the 233MHz Pentium II
- The latest and greatest uSoft-ware was _Windows 3.1_
- The WWW had a grand total of about 3K sites
Those old enough in the IETF may remember Marshall Rose's presentation on the
ISO stack, with the mental image of the small furry animal spreadagled across
the front of the giant truck. Trying to kill IPv4, to improve the prospects
for IPv6, is going to be just about as successful.
Maybe the IPv6 aficionados should go spend their time and energy in trying to
make things better for IPv6, instead of trying to 'help' it out by trying to
cripple IPv4 - because so far, IPv6 deployment is an abysmal failure.
17 years? As Ross Perot famously said: "It takes GM seven years to build a
new car. We won the Pacific War in four."
It takes something really special to make GM look like a bunch of hyper-active
geniuses.
<Stomps off.>
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf