<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/22/22 4:58 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL9jLaY62bae+nRbdNYiYCtGX=dEu3ZnoSZ8tv-NR=G692DYwg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36
PM Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mike@mtcc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<div><snip> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">right would have had any
better chance of being adopted? My experience <br>
with Cisco product managers at the time is that they
couldn't give a <br>
shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If their
silicon forwarding <br>
couldn't handle it, they weren't interested unless customers
were <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Somewhere in this thread Randy sent a link to his ivtf
screed^H^H^H^H^H^Hposition-paper.</div>
<div>I think his point there was essentially: "Hey, vendors
are coin operated, they build what people</div>
<div>are asking for, if they are willing to pay AND if there
are enough of them paying" <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I detect no lies here. If we didn't build the right thing from
the standpoint of ISP's, they would have told us what they wanted
instead. The truth is they didn't want anything but what they had
with v4, and running off the cliff was multiple quarterly earnings
away so who cares. IPv6 is a classic case of a standards body
pushing on string, technical merits be damned. </p>
<p>That people are relitigating something from 30 years ago that has
been proven to not make any appreciable difference to deploability
is part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is a salt
mine's worth of saltiness. When the mobile guys came around and
said they wanted to listen, they got the solution they could live
with. That's all it took.<br>
</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>