< rant > the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly, flip a switch or two, and get 96 more bits no magic. 15 years later, dhcp is still a cf, i have to run a second server (why the hell does isc not merge them?), i can not use it for finding my gateway or vrrp exit, ... at least we got rid of the tla/nla classful insanity. but u/g? puhleeze. at ripe/dublin, olaf gave a really nice but somewhat glib talk about technology adoption, using dnssec and ipv6 as the positive examples. as some curmudgeonly schmuck pointed out at the mic, dnssec is forward compatible and there are no alternatives, so it is being adopted despite its complexity and warts. ipv6 is not forward compatible, we put unnecessary obstacles in the deployment path, and there are alternatives. d o o m. if we had wanted ipng deployed, we would have done everything we could to make it simple and easy for net-ops and end users to turn it on. instead, we made it complex and hard and then blame everyone else for not instantly adopting it en masse. the ietf did not listen to or consider the customer. this is fatal. and the arrogance is taking what is left of the e2e internet down the drain with it. randy