I would hope that a practical benefit of IPv6 would be improved performance as a result of support for large packets.
That said, I expect to be disappointed. I had really hoped that IEEE would have made support for jumbo frames an absolute requirement for all gigabit ethernet. But nooooo, its an option so we missed out on that opportunity. On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Fleischman, Eric < eric.fleisch...@boeing.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net>wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >>> Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have >>> helped >>> anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major >>> flaw >>> with the path we did adopt. >>> >> There is no incentive to spend resources to get there. >>> >> >> > Indeed, it has been remarkable how poor the sales pitch has been to >> resource-poor operations that are expected to adopt this, even after all >> this time. >> > > <snip> > > Specifically there is a cycle of ungranted requests. Alice has no > incentive to upgrade her infrastructure because she cannot use any new > feature until Bob upgrades. Meanwhile Bob has no incentive to upgrade > ahead of Alice. > > > Mere exhortations from the great and the good have very limited > effect. > > The "elephant in the room" which this discussion hasn't considered > is "Why would a widget maker want to spend money, thereby reducing their > bottom line, to upgrade their network to IPv6? Applying traditional > business risk/reward analysis, is there even one real *business advantage* > to justify such an expense? If there isn't any, then IPv6 would only > rationally be deployed by such an end user if it were both transparent > and free. > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
