Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Noel Chiappa)
Message-ID: <20041118124056.0A28986AE6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
| adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
| *that* much time.
Hmm - the auto analogy is perhaps not a bad one. Cars were invented
in what - about 1880? And how long did it take before just about
everyone was using one? Or even before they were really widespread?
Designing new stuff isn't that hard (IPv6 was done for all practical
purposes years & years ago now) - getting it widely adopted is an entirely
different problem and can take a very long time - which says nothing
at all about either the value of, or the need for, the new stuff.
Nor does it prevent their being plenty of people who are quite convinced,
for whatever reason, that the new stuff isn't necessary or useful, and
they're going to keep using the old forever.
kre
ps: it has been pointed out to me that in my last message I used Stanford's
class A as an example, when they have already renumbered and returned it.
That's great, and apologies for not checking before putting finger to keyboard.
The point doesn't alter though.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf