[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
"Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com> writes:
>> Way too much of this discussion ignores this. If IPv6 PI space isn't
>> available, is more difficult to get, or there are more hoops to jump
>> through, there will be no IPv6, as we know now it.
> Statements like that tell me that we are still thinking in IPv4
> terms. This is precisely why this discussion is happening, because
> we _need_ to think in non-IPv4 terms. If we are constrained by how
> things work in the IPv4 world then you are correct. However, if we
> are constrained by how things work in the IPv4 world then IPv6 will
> not be worth much anyway.
We *are* thinking in non-IPv4 terms.
In the site multihoming arena, we have devolved from thinking in IPv4
terms of "rough consensus and working code" to thinking in OSI terms,
where it is perfectly acceptable to block implementation of a
known-working-but-flawed mechanism in favor of a paper design, or
worse, a yet-to-be-conceived design.
Unless we break this trend, I agree with Dan, we can forget about IPv6.