[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Randy Bush]

> True enough but someday still I hope to see something come out of
> research that isn't a tunnel back or a brute force BGP solution.
>> V4 never considered the idea that entire networks would "undock" from
>> the Internet and then "move between continents" and attempt to "dock"
>> with the Internet again.
> While this might be true, it can be argued that given v6 uses the  
> same routing technology as v4, v6 also doesn't consider the idea that  
> networks can dock and undock.

well, some old dogs, and even some new dogs, are not to excited
about basing decisions with long-term impact on things which have
yet to pan out but we still hope some day might.

to be mildly less polite, few if any of the the v6 133t's grand
visions and promises seem to have panned out yet, routing is still
the same, and we're trying to deal socially with a massive case of
second system syndrome.  yet we ops are struggling to do our best
to deploy this half-designed but little different wobbly structure
for which there are yet sufficient users to pay 10% of the costs
we're incurring just in case we hit an address space problem.  and
we decry v4 nats while nats are slowly becoming more a part of what
we are told to expect in v6 (every time we push hard enough on the
routing table size question).

so please hold back on the "we need to do X just in case Y, which
has been promised all our lives, pans out some year."  it's not
that ops don't plan for the future; we just don't enjoy having to
keep explaining to the the board why 4/5 of the future never seems
to arrive on the income side of the income statement.

randy
---
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?