Big Temporary Networks
trejrco at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 01:59:19 UTC 2012
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
If that is really your opinion, the entire conversation is a rather moot
point as I believe you and "pretty much the rest of the world" (again,
including all those who helped develop and have deployed / are deploying
IPv6) are not in agreement.
*Not saying popularity equals correctness, just that there is a sizable
counter-point to your statement.
Yes, the goal should be to minimize the "special cases" but there will
always some of those. That is what the ~"IPv6 over Foo" series of
documents is all about, accommodating those needs ... A "single counter
example" is *only *enough to say that IPv6 does not *currently/ideally* fit
*that* deployment scenario and that, just perhaps, *that deployment* needs
some special consideration(s) on the part of IPv6. It does not, in any
way, invalidate the protocol as a whole.
Let me ask, in your opinion:
Is the "better and easier" answer here to start from scratch, or to
identify the problem(s) and simply fix it(them) if warranted?
More information about the NANOG