Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



+1

On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:02 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

> everyone--
> 
> IPv6 may have been born with a developmental disability, but we're not dealing with a corpse yet.  The patient is still alive, getting better, and with a bit of love and proper care, might yet grow up to make better and brighter music than IPv4.
> 
> Maybe I'm being overly sentimental and using anthropomorphism inappropriately here, but really folks-- isn't it a bit unseemly to be arguing over how we went so "wrong" with IPv6-- and how we could do ever so much better the *next* time we get to reinvent the Internet if we avoid all the killing mistakes we made in bringing IPv6 up-- while there are, today, more people than ever before taking what are perceived to be enormous risks actually making the v4->v6 transition start to happen?
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]