IPX, Appletalk, etc. were much sophisticated as LAN protocols, but not very good in terms of the backbone routing.
Backbone routing should be optimized for scalability, speed/capacity, and security; whereas LAN or CPE/Edge routers should be optimized more for features like plug n' play, subscriber management, etc. IPv6 protocol theory is more sophisticated than IPv4. But it has far less consideration for the real backbone operation. I think the recent confrontation in the 6man/6ops mailing list is due to the different perspectives between the IPv6 protocol theory and the backbone operation in practice. Miya -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:47 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: v6...@ops.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: ping-pong phenomenon with p2p links & /127 prefixes And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and CLNS. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
