Keith Moore wrote: > > > But it has turned into another absurd avoidance of basic > > > principles because folks have their heals dug in on for > some reason. > > > > Look carefully before you speak. From another perspective, > those who > > are insisting that IPv6 not be capable of anything more than the > > limitations of IPv4 are the ones with their heals dug in. > > nobody is insisting on this.
'I strongly disagree that this practice adds value to IPv6.', as a response to a vendor that was describing where they find value in general app use of LL is being obstructionist. > what some people are insisting > on is that IPv6 support *their* favorite capability, and > sometimes it's hard to tell whether they care if this > insistence harms other valuable capabilities. Not to speak for Josh, but I suspect his favorite capability is delivering a product that a customer is willing to pay for, and it doesn't cost him an arm-and-a-leg in continuing support. There is no harm to other capabilities that I can see. Just to the mistaken perception that the world is a single flat routing space ... Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
