RE: [RRG] Moving forward...

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|There are at least two dimensions in which the differences between v4 
|and v6 may make a difference to what sorts of solutions are 
|effective / 
|deployable / definable / ...
|1) The fact that the IPv6 header has lots of bits means that there are 
|solutions that do not involve encapsulation or information loss which 
|can be considered with v6 that do not apply to v4.
|2) The fact that v6 is still, in practice, in very early stages means 
|that there is more willingness to change the system to make it worth 
|having.  And that folks are more willing to look at changes.
|
|This does not mean that I want to ignore IPv4.  But it does 
|mean that I 
|think the differences may have an impact on the architectural approach 
|we recommend.  And I would hate to see us declare that we will not 
|consider any approach which can not leverage those differences.


Agree.

Moreover, my goal here is to effect a substantive change in the basic
routing architecture, not just to band-aid the problem.  Whatever solution
that we come up with is going to have to last effectively indefinitely, so
it behooves us to do something that's clean.  IPv4 has now lasted 25 years.
It seems likely that if we do in fact make a shift to v6, then it would be
effectively forever or at least long enough to exceed the life span of
anyone currently on the mailing list.  I'd very much prefer that we left our
grandchildren something that we could all be proud of.

If we do find something that is both clean AND can be back-ported to v4, I
would definitely support that.

Tony


--
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