RE: "IPv6 transition security" problem statement from a workshop that never happened

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

> like too much of our work, the world is far more complex than 
> it used to be.  what are "normal deployment" issues today can 
> be a bit more daunting than those of a few years back, e.g., 
> we used not to consider security at all.  so what we are 
> trying to do today is being examined using criteria which are 
> more stringent than in previous technology deployments.

We do agree here yes.

And I have found deployment more intense than Rob's warts but nothing is
perfect.

The key is to fix the warts in trials, implementations, and pilots so no
one gets killed.
So objective is to reduce risk and thats what Rob's paper will help all
do for sure.

But taking no risk at key points for technology deployment or in life I
personally believe means you don't evolve at a correct rate to survive.
In this case worst case is continuing to live with NAT and loss of e2e
principles, and those early Internet precepts are quite important to
several customers goals I work with hence today some risk is required to
get back to e2e and IPv6 is that path.

> 
> so i am not as sanguine about how easy it is and will be than 
> you seem to be.  but the proof will be in the pudding, eh?  
> so best to go about making the pudding.

All for making the pudding 100%.

p.s. complete opposite of pacifist here, genealogy and training all the
way back to great great grandpa who was warrior too, but objective of
any true warrior that has honor is peace and at that intersection I
believe we converge.  Its the roads we take to get there where we
diverge most likely.

/jim