Brian;
> > Thomas;
> >
> > > The
> > > other changes/benefits (simplified autoconfiguration, improved
> > > mobility, tools to help with renumbering, etc.) while important, are
> > > secondary.
> >
> > Huh? Compared to IPv4 equivalent, all the three features of IPv6
> > are unnecessarily complex without necessary functionalities.
>
> This is your opinion, not a statement of fact.
Of course, it is not a statement of fact, because it is not authorized
by the committee.
And, you take, for example, the following recent comment of Sean
literally:
: Itojun -
:
: >o The site may use the address prefix: 3ffe:0501:ffff::/48. The address
: > prefix was curved out from WIDE 6bone prefix. The site MUST be
: > renumbered, before the site gets connected to the worldwide IPv6
: > network.
:
: Shouldn't IPv6's much-trumpeted stateless autoconfiguration and
: renumbering scheme take care of that, well, automatically?
that real world operators are so happy with much-trumpeted stateless
autoconfiguration and renumbering features of IPv6.
Wow!
> > > > IPv6 is only rationally justified as a modest but necessary
> > > > enhancement to IPv4,
> > >
> > > I agree with this, and suspect that much of the core IPv6 community
> > > does as well.
> >
> > That's a silly statement.
>
> No it isn't.
For committees, of course, it isn't, because a committee can not
accept a statement of fact that the committee is silly.
Masataka Ohta
