[LAC-TF] Fwd: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt]

[Fernando Gont]

Reciente post al 6man wg. No se si me quedo con el "body", o con el "CC" :-)

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:18:29 +0900
Message-ID: <m2zjzkes96.wl%randy at psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema at microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt]
Cc: IPv6 Deployment Prevention <ipv6 at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6 at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list

>> i know.  ipv6 is perfect, widely deployed, and unchangable.  i hope
>> we all like v4 nat.
> I can find many reasons to remove the magic from the U and G bits. I
> personally ran into the U/G bit issues in RFC 4380 (Teredo) and RFC
> 6052 (IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses). In both cases, the design would
> have been simpler if we had not try to maintain the fiction of the U
> and G bits. And CGA could definitely benefit from 2 additional bits of
> entropy. So this is not a change "just because."

a prospective implementor looks at ipv6 and sees a whole bunch of twisty
passages of useless second system syndrome.  there are more damn options
than the chicago mercantile exchange.  and as there is no *strong* pull
from the market, all our pleas do not transform income you can sell to
your management.

when multiple layers of ipv4 nat is financially more attractive than our
product, we have a very serious problem.  we need to wipe the lipstick
off the pig and start selling straightforward port chops.

except i fear it is far too late.

randy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------