On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:49:21 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > [email protected] wrote: > > Especially when some of the biggest IPv6 networks out there are still using > > it pretty heavily.
> That's not a valid counter argument against people who > found problems in certain environment. > > IPv6, as is, might work well under some environment assumed by > IPng/IPv6 WG, a committee. The environment may be large. > IPv6 does not work well in many environments. Feel free to try to deprecate *everything* that doesn't work well in many environments. Heck, SMTP doesn't work well in many environments (it's done in cleartext unless you deploy STARTTLS, it's subject to spamming, etc etc) - but I don't see you leading a charge to deprecate SMTP. Probably because you actually use it, even though it's totally unsuitable for many environments. It's one thing to deprecate something that's obviously a complete failure or has reached historic status - but RA isn't either of those *yet*. > In this case, the following statement in RFC1883: > > If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than > > 6 seconds), > is the wrong assumption which made RA annoying. Oddly enough, a lot of us are running on networks where assuming this about end user gear is perfectly reasonable. We haven't seen many consumer-grade Windows, Macs, or Linux boxes that are able to reboot in much under 6 seconds. Yes, I know you can do it with careful tuning and throwing SSDs and other hardware at it - doesn't mean it's common. Most of the time, any gains made in boot speed are immediately wiped out with "since it boots 10% faster, we can start 10% more stuff..."
pgpZpJreWOB2O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
