"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The fact that it does not solve the global routing table meltdown is, > > according to such people, an obvious failure of v6 -- never mind that > > they are unrelated issues. > > How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in any way refute > the criticism of IPv6 regarding its lack of a solution to routing issues?
It is a silly criticism. It is like criticizing antibiotics for only curing bacterial infection and not AIDS. "They're obviously useless. Lets dump them." If v6 is flawed in this regard, well then so is v4. > The reasoning here is faulty. The fault lies in the assumption that whatever > fix is found can be deployed in IPv4 (and thus, since the two are so similar, > in IPv6). In fact, many people see IPv4 as fundamentally flawed in its basic > structure, when it comes to supporting a true "next generation" routing > architecture - and so, by extension, IPv6 is equally fundamentally flawed > (since it's just IPv4 with a large address). Well, Noel, we've been waiting some years for someone to descend from heaven with parchment scrolls describing the perfect internet in their hands, but unfortunately we have to keep the net working now, since we don't know when they might deign to arrive. (And yes, Noel, we know that you've already described the complete solution and if only we would read the documents which we've all ignored so callously...) -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
