>> Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset. e.g. the larger
>address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
>the increasing number of routes.
>and i am not 'taunting' but trying to see how the hell we can solve some of
>the serious problems we have today and not take them with us to the v6 land
>of milk and honey, e.g. the multi6 discussion.
>if we don't get much smarter quickly, we'll just be making the same mess on
>a larger (in one dimension) scale. we need to take a very serious look at
>8+8 again. we need to be open to other good ideas.
You are absolutely right Randy. Unfortunately the coda for the IETF these
days is "Rough Consensus and Shipping Code". One of the biggest problems
these days is that we have people demanding backwards compatibility with
things that don't really exist yet in a meaningful way. We are becoming
more and more like the ITU these days.
Several WG's such as SIP have engineers complaining about tiny little
changes in a specification that would affect *their* code. So we can't fix
a known problem in the spec even though hardly anyone is using this stuff yet.
