[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)

To: <drc@virtualized.org>
Subject: RE: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:24:48 -0700
Cc: <rrg@psg.com>
In-reply-to: <DD4088F4-53EF-476D-8ED7-C51312261761@virtualized.org>
References: <483934A7.90800@firstpr.com.au> <8329C86009B2F24493D76B486146769A9DDC072E@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <48397AB9.1020501@firstpr.com.au>,<483A1A83.4080208@gmail.com> <8329C86009B2F24493D76B486146769A9DDC073F@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <754A8DE4E3F64660BD83CEFCBE007FE1@ad.redback.com> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C03EC0237@emailwf1.jnpr.net> <DD4088F4-53EF-476D-8ED7-C51312261761@virtualized.org>

 
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc@virtualized.org] 
>Some might argue that if time isn't a consideration, the right 
>way to "Do It Right" is to throw out IPv6 as an abject failure 
>and start anew.  

I must be missing something: why are we concluding that IPv6 is an
abject failure? 

If the reason is because of the scarcity of IPv6 deployment by us end
users, then I would state that this is EXACTLY what I personally
expected would happen back in 1994 (please see
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1687.txt) and that this does not necessarily
reflect IPv6's technical merits.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
  - From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>

References:
- [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
- RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
- Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
- Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
- RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>
- RE: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
  - From: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>
- "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
  - From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem must be solved directly, not by relying on migration to IPv6
Next by Date: Re: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
Previous by thread: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
Next by thread: Re: "Doing It Right" (was Re: [RRG] Consensus? IPv4 scaling problem ...)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread