legacy /8

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Sat Apr 3 13:25:48 CDT 2010



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:LarrySheldon at cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> 
> 
> That is the parachute's fault?
> 
> Really?
> --


No.  But that isn't the point.  The point is that v6 was a bad solution
to the problem.  Rather than simply address the address depletion
problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
creating a whole bunch more that we will have.  Rather than simply
address the problem that was on the horizon, the group took the
opportunity to complicate it with a lot of other contraptions and saw
that as being a "good thing" that apparently we and the vendors are just
too dumb to realize or something.  And they made v4 incompatible with v6
rather really addressing the problem.  They saw simply extending the
header with additional address bits to be a "bad thing" for some reason
when that is really all that was needed and so they went on building
their mousetrap and we have the mother of all internet protocols that
slices and dices and even makes Julien fries when all we needed was a
bigger potato peeler.  

I am not saying we can change it at this point but I am saying we should
learn from it and never, ever, do things this way again.










More information about the NANOG mailing list