|
Per Heldal wrote: IPv6 is inevitable. Sooner for this crowd to which my organization belongs than later for some others. To believe that a full suite of TE capabilities is a day 1 requirement is an attempt to maintain business decisions based upon a technology that is outliving its usefulness. Let those organizations and their supporters be lagards in adopting the new technology. That too is a business decision. Will IPv6 preclude some business decisions made with IPv4? Certainly. But will it allow others not possible? Also certainly. That is the nature of change. Is shim6 everthing I would like it to be? No. But, I lobbied hard in the multi6 group for movement towards any site multihoming solution, because the real change with IPv6 is not the increased address space, but the change in the relationship between the ISP and its customers, a change to which both groups must ultimately adapt and movement towards a solution supporting that change was not happening. Shim6 is progress in the right direction. Become part of the solution not part of the problem. Can more TE capabilities be provided day one? Maybe. But it will not happen by demanding everything from the side lines and refusing to play until everyone gets their way.On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:13:43 -0500 (EST), "Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com> said: [snip] Harold Grovesteen |