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

[John Payne]

On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> 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!


*sigh*

I was asking Fred a question in order to better answer his.

Anyhow, this is starting to feel like 2006 (see thread starting at: http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg00987.html)

After a call for operator input to shim6 from NANOG, the shim6 mailing  
list received operator input, including a decent size set of  
requirements.  Perhaps not a formal requirements document, but pain  
points and needs and wants were expressed.

Of course, none of those would fit into shim6, and since it had  
already been decided that shim6 was the direction of multihoming,  
"buzz off pesky operators".

And then IPv6 PI space started to appear.... "yay".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20090331/cd669084/attachment.htm>