V6 still not supported

Tue Mar 22 13:40:49 UTC 2022

John Curran wrote:

> The characterization that the IAB somehow struck back with the IPng
> decision implies a level of direction over the decision which simply
> did not exist.

I understand that that is your theory.

> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics"
> involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous
> pressure to "make a decision" rather than IAB/IESG shaping of the
> various protocol proposals and their technical evolution.

So, your theory is that because IAB/IESG must make decisions,
they can make decisions to make IPng a lot worse than IPv4.

> The
> technical teams that submitted each proposal controlled that
> proposal's evolution, and the IPng Directorate (not the IAB or IESG)
> made the final IPng protocol selection/recommendation.

Before they were disturbed by IAB, sure.

But, as you pointed out, they are politically disturbed to make
their proposals merge.

> You can
> confirm all of this rather easily, as the entire set of IPng
> materials and decisions are here at Scott Bradner’s archive -
> https://www.sobco.com/ipng/ <https://www.sobco.com/ipng/>

Surely, I can confirm that you actually support my points.

>> It should also be noted that merger is just political ceremony to
>> pretend IPng were resulted from cooperation of many contributors
>> only to make it bloat by incorporating all the features without
>> technical merits.
> 
> Half correct; the final protocol was indeed the result of compromise

That is a lot more than enough, not just half lot.

> out of the earnest belief of technical merit of the unproven

No. It is out of the earnest belief of political merit by
some committee.

 > Of course, the problem with including
 > new & unproven features

Wrong.

A problem, among many, of IPv6 is that it is bloat to have included
a lot of old and proven to be useless/harmful features.

					Masataka Ohta