RE: Evolution of the IP model - ICMP and MTUs

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@free.fr] 
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:03 AM
>To: Fernando Gont
>Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; v6ops Operations
>Subject: Re: Evolution of the IP model - ICMP and MTUs
>
>Fernando Gont  - Le 8/18/08 5:29 PM :
>> At 12:03 p.m. 18/08/2008, Rémi Després wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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?
>>> In my Webster dictionary - 10th edition: "tending to hinder the 
>>> attainment of a desired goal", the goal being here sucessful IPv6 
>>> deployment ;-).
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>Please note that I argue only for the particular problem at hand, not 
>for all "problems".
>
>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.

IMHO, making certain aspects of IPv4 better would encourage
bringing IPv6 forward in the right way; not discourage from
bringing IPv6 forward in any way.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

>
>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
>
>