Subject: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:54:00 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > IMHO, there's something fundamentally wrong with any IETF working group
    > that's not willing to learn about IPv6.

On the other hand, maybe they are just recognizing reality - something much
of the rest of the IETF seems stubbornly determined to ignore.

    > IPv6 is not a specialized topic, it's the layer common to all parts of
    > the emerging Internet.

Case in point....

I ought to adopt a .sig:

  "Number of decades since formal adoption of IPv6: N",

where of course currently N=1.2 (since SIPP was selected as IPng at the July,
1994, IETF). So, exactly how large does N have to get before the
ludicrousness level gets high enough to overwhelm the refusal to admit
reality?

If IPv6 were a drug, it would likely have been outlawed, it's (seemingly) so
mind-altering and addictive.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:15:51 -0400

> of the rest of the IETF seems stubbornly determined to ignore.

it's generally been my experience that when people cite "reality" that it is more
accurate to substitute "my belief/superstition/prejudice that I cannot defend"

the problem with citing "reality" in support of a design decision to make a protocol 
less flexible is that it tends to be self-fulfilling.

to support only IPv4 is to build in obsolescence.  
are we designing standards for the past, or for the future?

Keith