On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" <twi...@cymru.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4? > > > > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. > > I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4 > protocol-specific discussion threads vs. IPv6, but it certainly "feels" > like there are more. My feeling is also that the IPv6 discussions are > much more fundamental, in that they're discussing basic deployment > strategies, etc. But it could all be selection bias because it's > prominent in the collective mindset, I'll grant you that. >
Yes, selection bias. There are some people who like to talk about basic things, state their opinions as facts, and email a lot. I keep trying to come up with a religion analogy, but none are just quite right. Did Copernicus hang around at the Vatican to talk about Heliocentrism ? Cb > > Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is > > 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. > > Point taken. Anyone have time to try to do a long-term comparative > study of discussions on deployment strategies and things like NAT, DHCP, > etc, for IPv4 vs. IPv6, factoring in the differing levels of overall > Internet adoption at the time of IPv4 adoption vs. IPv6, etc? If so, I > have a few other tasks I'd love to have you do... :) > > As others have said, I guess what it really shows is that nothing ever > really changes, and no one (protocol designers, IETF folks, operators, > router vendors, etc) is perfect, despite our best efforts to be. :) > > Regards, > Tim > > - -- > Tim Wilde, Senior Software Engineer, Team Cymru, Inc. > twi...@cymru.com | +1-630-230-5433 | http://www.team-cymru.org/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk5JjEYACgkQluRbRini9thaIwCggaprPoquYDvQ3b4Pp53qfe43 > KlAAoIWjjr5ItnWdMcIOW7Fc9rvbPRfw > =M9lE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >