Hiya, On 02/10/17 09:23, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 02/10/2017 08:54, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> I do however >> agree that we ought stop adding features to IPv4 that don't work for >> IPv6, > > Something that has been nagging me for a while is that the underpin of > this statement, > is the assumption that IPv4 and IPv6 are equivalent and work the same > way. I didn't make that assumption. > However, > they do not work the same way. For example, IPv4 uses ARP and permits > in-network > fragmentation. So statements such as the above would mean that > legitimate maintenance > might be precluded. I don't think legitimate maintenance adds features, at least not in the sense I meant. I definitely would not want to see legitimate maintenance precluded. > > Rather than tie millstones to IPv4, wouldn't it be better to demonstrate > the compelling > advantage of IPv6? That's easy - the existence of available addresses is compelling advantage enough:-) In any case, I think this exchange illustrates the need for more subtlety in any new policy statement on this topic. Cheers, S. > > - Stewart > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature