[85723] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Sun Oct 16 13:04:20 2005
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:06:27 -0400."
<12112234326222@mail.emanon.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:03:54 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
# The problem with that (and many premises) is that we need to remember these
# arguments and foreseen "problems" were all dreamed up 10 or so years ago.
# The status of everyone's network, everyone's business needs and everyone's
# network design (and capabilities) were drastically different that long ago.
#
# It's a solution that made sense for far different reasons when it was
# created then it makes sense for now.
nope. the problems we're discussing on this thread were all identified ten
years ago but ipv6 got standardized in spite of the warnings. ipv6 as it is
now specified never made sense for any network, either existing or possible,
and all it's really done is to make a bad situation worse and a hard problem
even harder to solve. but by handing /32 sugar pills to early adopters, some
momentum will be created, and the folks who will not be able to multihome
later on will not by that time have any choice except to "accept status quo".
it's a neat solution, i wish i'd thought of it. (i was blinded by idealism.)
