On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 02:08 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > And planning for a future that doesn't happen because you're too caught up > in *planning* that future is irrelevant, too.
Advocating for fewer limits is not "planning". It's the opposite of it. It's about retaining more flexibility - as a matter of principle. > And in ~15 years when they have a jobs, they can change what we built. > (assuming ever let the paint dry long enough to use it.) We've had twenty years to implement IPv6 and golly haven't we done a great job? I suppose we could all hope that our kids will be less hopeless than we have been. Still... I'd prefer to leave them something that is easier to change and improve than the last thing we built. > IPv6 will never get there until it, too, "just works". No - so why do so many people just keep on and on moaning about how IPv6 doesn't "just work", forgetting that once upon a time IPv4 didn't "just work" either? "Getting there" and "just working" are two things that have to be developed together. One doesn't follow the other, they both become true side by side, or neither happens at all. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
