Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit

[Jeroen Massar]

Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 14:05, John Payne <john at sackheads.org> wrote:
> 
>> [*]  even if that's "primary/backup" rather than anything more complex...
>> but people will want to try to get to 60/40 or 50/50 for political or cost
>> reasons
>>
> 
> and people denying/not acknowledging the need of political/economical
> traffic engineering are kindly asked to get their head outside of the
> cozy cave that their educational lab network is. ktnxby

Please then propose a "total solution" to this problem that solves it
for everybody. A requirements document would already be a great start
for that matter.

You can come out of your cozy cave when you have done that.

NEXT!

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20090331/65ae3ad6/attachment.sig>