[137528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Dillon)
Tue Feb 15 22:25:17 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D5AB7AD.9010604@otd.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:25:09 -0800
From: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> One of the biggest problem v6 seems to have had is that its designers see=
med
> to think the problem with v4 was that it didn't have enough features. =A0=
They
> then took features from protocols that ipv4 had killed over the years, an=
d
> added them to v6, and said, "Look, I made your new IP better." =A0And the=
n,
> when the operators groaned and complained and shook their heads, the ipv6
> folks called them "backward" and "stuck in ipv4-think." =A0But the fact o=
f the
> matter is, operators want a protocol to be as simple, efficient, flexible=
,
> and stupid as possible. =A0They don't want the protocol tied to how thing=
s
> work today; it needs to be open to innovation and variety.
This sounds a lot like bellhead speak.
The fact is that IP of any version was made for the users of network,
not just for the privileged few who operate them. Compromises had to
be made so, in the end, IPv6 is not perfect. But why should it be?
There is a process for changing and updating IPv6. Use it!
But implement what we have now as best you can.
