>> no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not >> operationally feasible". > Given the stunningly successful deployment of IPv6 ten years after it > has been standardized, I can see how you would say this. and somehow the RIRs are going to fix this by changing the default address allocation size? as far as I knew this was the least of IPv6's problems. > IPv6 is fascinating in how it has inherited many of the problems of > IPv4 but in a way that isn't backwards compatible with IPv4. As such, > it shouldn't be too surprising that the same operational > considerations that apply to IPv4 also apply to IPv6. it wouldn't be surprising if it were true. but it's not true in general. >> also, I suggest that the RIRs are only considering operations from a >> narrow point-of-view. > The narrow point of view that says the network should actually work, > yes. The RIRs are comprised of folks who provide or use Internet > services. As such, they do sort of want the Internet to function, > even if that functioning is aided by violations of IETF holy writs. perhaps, but they might have a different idea of "functionality" than their customers. if we're trying to balance the interests of ISPs against those of users, somehow a body that consists of mostly ISPs doesn't seem like the place to do it.
Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
