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

[Jeroen Massar]

Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 14:56, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
>> Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
>>> - keep the routing table reasonably compact
>>> - allow multihoming the way v4 PI does for small players
>> That voids your first rule. NEXT.
>>
>>> - allow 'political' traffic engineering, in addition to whatever
>>> technical reason you may have already
>> That also voids the first rule. NEXT.
>>
>> Write a full draft. And keep in mind that there are other people that
>> have different requirements which they want satisfied.
> 
> My idea was to get a full list of requirements, and then discuss the
> conflicting ones.
> But you managed to expose 2 conflicts with just 3 requirements so this
> is probably why v6 deployement has stalled so long and nobody writes
> that full draft. Are we trying to address too many things at once ?

The internet is this big thing with a lot of people. Not everybody will
be able to eat the full cake when it comes to routing and then also
being able to keep it able to route to everybody.

There are a *LOT* of proposals being worked on, the most prominent one
at the moment most likely being LISP. see the RRG group at the IRTF for
various other proposals.

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 : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20090331/787ca555/attachment.bin