In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J. Noel Chiappa" typed:
>> > right, noels wrong.
>>Noel is happy to wait, and see who's right. (I've been through this exact
>>same experience before, with CLNP, so I understand the life-cycle.) So far,
>>I've been waiting for quite a few years with IPv6, and so far I'm right.
>>Let's see, how many years have these standards been out, and how much
>>deployment has there been? Hmm, RFC-1883 was in December 1995. Can you point
>>me to *any* other IETF product that, 5 years after the Proposed Standard came
>>out, still hadn't been significantly deployed - and then went on to be a
>>success?
>>No?
wrong - multicast.
>>I didn't think so.
read again - LOTS of things have seen almost no deployment since
being standar,d and lots of things haev seen deploymewnt (e.g. napster
hit around 15% of college traffic) without even a breath of an i-d
>> > NATs are not only bad e2e karma, they are bad tech
>>I'm not denying that - and I've said as much. All address-sharing devices are
>>problematic, and some (e.g. NAT boxes) are downright disgusting kludges.
>>
>>However, history shows that bad tech doesn't magically replace itself, it has
>>to be replaced by an economically viable alternative. (For an example of this
>>principle in action, note that the vast majority of cars are still powered by
>>reciprocating internal-combustion engines... talk about poor basic concept!
>>But I digress....)
i agree...
>>Judging from the real world out there, it appears that IPv6 isn't a viable
>>alternative.
i agree its not worth holding one's breath...
cheers
jon
