[ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document
Kevin Loch <kloch at kl.net> writes:
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> If you think the IETF should be working
>> on something other than shim6 or IPv4-style BGP multihoming for IPv6
>> (which doesn't require anything new from the IETF), then you'd need to get
>> enough people to agree with you to hold a BOF and get a new WG started.
> We need more engineers experimenting with code and less trying to get
> WG's started.
Hear, hear. "Rough consensus and working code" unfortunately gives
people the wrong impression, that consensus comes before the code.
"Working code before you bother trying for rough consensus" is what
historically differentiated the ARPAnet folks from the CCITT guys.
Forgetting our roots has caused stagnation. Padlipsky's magnum opus
is back in print (thanks to backinprint.com). Buyitreaditlearnitliveit.