> > > 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. > > > > For me "more addresses" is the *only* justification for IPv6. All the > > other "useful" features are either uninteresting or even *unwanted*. > > > > Just so I know, are you confirming that you've only ever used IPv4, and > know nothing about any other protocols and how they worked?
No. I've used DECnet both as an end user, as a network programmer and as a network admin. Appletalk as an end user and network admin, XNS only as a network admin. CLNS is still alive and well in our backbone, used for IS-IS. We even have a little bit of CLNS routing, over on the SDH/WDM side. > Your view seems to me to be a bit like saying, "I'm perfectly happy > with my 1970s car, it gets me from A to B, and I see no reason to have > electric windows, anti-lock brakes, electronic fuel injection, or a GPS, > because my 1970s car doesn't have them". I don't claim to represent all views on IPv6. I *do* claim that a view that "more addresses" is the only justification for IPv6 is reasonably widespread. I also claim that in my backbone the IPv6 RA baggage is an unwanted feature, and I'd much rather solve the problems with a more featureful DHCPv6, HSRP/VRRP etc. I'm quite willing to believe that there are large networks that want IPv6 RA functionality, want LAN segments to be locked to 64 bits, etc. But please don't assume these views universal - and I won't assume that *my* views are universal. Thank you. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
