On 2/16/2012 6:46 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Why? Apart from the fact that if this transition is painful, the next
one will be well-nigh impossible, having more bits lets us find creative
ways to use the address space.
Not to single out Steve, but my recollection is that that view was at the core
of much of the thinking about v6, certainly in the early-/mid-90s. "We only get
this one (last) opportunity to make changes, so we'd better add everything we
think we'll (ever) need."
The view is wrong.
Changing an established infrastructure is of course (a lot) more difficult and
expensive than creating a new one, but infrastructures can and do get changed.
There is a difference between saying "we need to make all of the changes that we
know we need now, versus saying we need to anticipate all of the changes we are
going to need to make."
Steve's phrasing points to the latter and that winds up as a fantasy exercise
which adds complexity and delay. It also tends to add the wrong things in the
wrong way.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf