DO NOT DISCUSS THINGS IN THIS THREAD! (<-- yelling :-)).
Please change the subject.
Thanks, Margaret
At 01:56 PM 4/4/2003 -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
Bill, I think what your missing is that to many of us, IPv6's selling points sum up to the following two things (the others pale):
1. Large address space 2. Mobility
(1) is not necessary with site-locals. Since we have established that
site-locals will encourage the use of NATs ('cause that's how it's done today) we might as well stick with the existing NAT'd infrastructure.
If people vote "No", the benefits of a NAT-free world having evaporated, I see no reason for anyone outside of the mobile folks to move forward with IPv6, since what we have works comparably well with IPv6.
And another thing- Tony keeps talking about acting irresponsibly by taking away a mechanism for which we otherwise have no solution. Of course we have a solution- IPv4 with NATs. This gives us some time to come up with something better for v6.
Eliot
Bill Manning wrote:
% "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
% % reasons += adds complexity to routing, forwarding, and network operations;
% % --
% Alex Zinin
waxing nostalgic... IPv6 was supposed to be an enabler of a whole
raft of interesting new capabilities. based on your concerns, listed
above, IPv6 is going to be nothing more than IPv4 with larger address space. if that is what we end up with, then IPv6 development might
be considered a waste of time. we could support the premise of IPv6
(10x16th nodes...?) using Paul Francis's nifty idea of a box that will
do address translation and never need to move away from a 32bit address
space.
IPv6 had (and perhaps still has) the ability to allow us to develop
alternative routing techniques, where aggregation is not the only abstraction that is viable.
For me the vote (and it is a vote...) seems to break down along these
lines:
Yes - those who wish to maintain the status quo or have vested commercial
interests in shipping IPv6 product.
No - those who wish to explore the latent capabilities of IPv6.
as usual, YMMV and my understanding is likely flawed.
--bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
