> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> The fact is that external evidence indicates that both premises are
> false. For a long time we tried ignoring NATs.
> ...
> As far as I can tell, following through on the kind of approach
> discussed here would simply make our products les useful, and
> reduce actual interoperability in the field.
Nice try to induce a little consideration of empirical evidence, but
you're wasting your breath. The IETF has shown itself startlingly willing
to ignore the real world when it comes to IPv6.
I mean, it's now coming up on *11 years* since IPv6 was selected (i.e.
back when the latest and greatest uSoft-ware was *Windows 3.1*, and the
WWW had a grand total of about 3K sites), and still we hear the "oh, it
will take off soon" - the same line we've been hearing for close to a
decade.
Alas, rationality won't return until we get to the point where saying the
phrase "IPv6 will succeed" to a room-full of networking people gets a total
belly-laugh from all of them. But that is not too far off, now, I think...
You need think of IPv6 as sort of a Ponzi scheme - it only keeps working
as long as there are new suckers out there, ones who aren't clued in yet,
who are gullible enough to buy into it. The latest crop seem to be in
China, etc, but there aren't too many backwaters left to sell the
snake-oil to,
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf