legacy /8

Sat Apr 3 18:43:47 UTC 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser at seven.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: Larry Sheldon
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: legacy /8
> 
> 
> 
> > -----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?
> > --

Maybe the correct analogy is that you are supplied with a "much better"
parachute that takes you so long to open that by the time you get it
opened, you are too close to the ground.  And that still isn't the
'chute's fault, it is the fault of whoever decided it would be "better".

So imagine you are now dropping load that are much larger than before
and so you need a parachute that is "bigger" but rather than simply
increasing the size of the 'chute, they also add a bunch of other
features than make the deployment of those 'chutes more difficult.  Not
only is the chute different, but the riggers need to be completely
retrained and it is no longer compatible with the other rigging so all
that needs to be replaced, too.  And yes, you can drop a bigger load
with it but 90% of the extra "features" end up being turned off or
causing problems because someone accidently left them enabled.  And by
the time you figure out that you have to pull 15 cords to get the thing
open, you are too late.  Is it really "better"?  

Yes, it is more capable but if all you do is cut meat for a living, are
you sure you want to do that with a Swiss Army knife?

Here is the most important concept to my mind:  They could have taken a
dual-track approach.  They could have expanded v4 while at the same time
developing v6.  If the reason for not doing that was "if we expand v4
then nobody will ever use v6" then that tells you that v6 wasn't needed
and that all that was needed was expansion of v4.  Intentionally
abandoning v4 for no other reason other than to force adoption of v6 was
a dumb idea driven by ego, in my opinion.  The notion that they "knew
better" what was needed than the people actually using it is a common
theme through history.

Besides address depletion, can anyone tell me what other problem v6
"solves"?