So what I'm getting from this discussion is that 8+8 is too late but
16+16 is too large??? I would agree that 16+16 is too large. How
about 4+16?
I am still curious as to why people think that 16+16 would be any
different to 8+8.
Because, like 4+16, it can coexist with plain 16. Whether people like
it or not, the product investments in RFC 2460 at this point oblige
any plausible solution to behave as an upgrade to plain 16.
Ok, I can see that. I was just under the (apparently mistaken)
impression that people thought there was some superior architectural
advantage with 16+16.