WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Thu Sep 27 21:25:07 UTC 2007

> If there is a need for more groups, we  can create new ones.

with all due respect, jari; maybe the number of groups is neither the
problem nor the solution

too much energy has been and is still being wasted dealing with overly
cute/complex ideas these wgs invent to fancy up ipv6 so it will be
deployed; from tla/nla/... to ula to sham6.  this has prevented focusing
on the real problems of deployment so they can be solved.

and the unscalable tunneling schemes are making a mess, in architecture,
in implementation, in user experience.  the latter is causing folk to
turn off ipv6.

there is a problem that the ivtf is dominated by the very vendors who
are holding up deployment by incomplete, poorly performing, expensive to
scale products.  and adding complexity and features is not helping this


More information about the NANOG mailing list