> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> > > As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site > > local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories. > > That's because you aren't trying to write apps that operate across addressing > realm boundaries, and you're apparently not willing to listen to those who > are. I am working on an application that works accross addressing realm bondaries. It involves a global network of thousands clients and servers on the public Internet talking to each other through NAT boxes, firewalls, and all sorts of other nasty stuff to the tune of more than 51 million operations the day before yesterday. There is IPv6 support in the code that seems to work in the sense of IPv6-only systems talking to IPv4-only systems indirectly through servers that do both IPv6 and IPv4. That nasty stuff causes all kinds of real world trouble as opposed to academic ivory tower empty talk and chest thumping. I and others waste plenty of time every week trying to get people running clients and servers for that application to fix their NAT boxes and firewalls. A common firewall error regularly causes Mega-packet/day/site wastes of bandwidth. > OTOH, you're quite willing to make abusive statements about things that > you don't understand. I understand all to well what's going on here. > I used to live in a building that had dumbwaiters and garbage chutes. Both > were found to be dangerous. So they told people to stop using them. They > didn't try to outlaw them or to make them go away or pretend that they never > existed. And occasionally someone did try to use them. Fortunately, merely > discouraging their use was sufficient to eliminate most of the danger. So why are you only repeating what you've said many times before instead of writing an RFC that will repudiate and replace BCP 5? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com