Fernando Gont - Le 8/18/08 5:29 PM :
Please note that I argue only for the particular problem at hand, not for all "problems".At 12:03 p.m. 18/08/2008, Rémi Després wrote:In my Webster dictionary - 10th edition: "tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal", the goal being here sucessful IPv6 deployment ;-).On 18 aug 2008, at 11:46, Rémi Després wrote:Fixing the problem for IPv6 may be worth the pain, but fixing it for IPv4 (the only subject of my comment) would IMO be counterproductive.Counterproductive?Wouldn't be a better goal to have some many interesting features in v6 that nobody could resist deploying it?> So you basically argue that keeping problems in IPv4 (on which the current infrastructure depends) would be a driver for v6?
As Iljitsch put it, what he calls a fix would involve "a new fragment header" (not defined overnight, I suppose, especially if it has to be applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6). And it "would of course take significant time to get deployed".
The point is then that energy would be better spent fixing IPv6 deployment problems (there remains a few, on which I personally try to be active), rather than spent complexifying IPv4 even more.
I haven't the view otherwise that making life purposedly difficult with one solution in order to promote another one is a right approach. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify it. RD
(I must admit it is not the first time that I hear this type of argument, though... )Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1