On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, 06:49 Robert Raszuk, <rras...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > > the first discussion should be whether we (as a community) believe we > should > > standardise features that only work within a specified domain, or > continue with > > the assumption that standardised features must work across the open > Internet. > > Indeed I agree. > > Just to rephrase the question: > > Is IPv6 to be used only as end to end host to host protocol or should IPv6 > also be used as transport protocol natively in the networks.. > > Solid deployments prove it can be used for both. Many people think it can > and should be used for both. > > But if there is solid IETF formal statement that it is *only* to be used > as end to end host protocol then we should really start putting more work > into other encapsulations which will allow to simply transport IPv6 > datagrams as payload or alternatively industry will seek other standards to > conitinue work on IPv6 as transport protocol. >
If IPv6 can't meet your requirements without dodgy hacks that decommodifies IPv6, makes it not interoperable with existing IPv6 implementations and deployments, and makes it much harder to troubleshoot, then no, you should not use IPv6. I'm reminded of advice from my Father. Don't use a good blade screwdriver to open the lid of paint can, because you'll ruin the screwdriver. It's not the right tool for the job. Just imagine how it can be called ... IPv6+ :) > > Many thx, > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
