On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.
Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something. But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong?
I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the past. But I would urge you to stick to those,
Stay tuned. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf