Bob Hinden wrote: > Eliot, > >> I would like to >> re-iterate what I said in the meeting, speaking for myself: there is no >> Plan B. We need to go to IPv6. The only question for me is how do we >> transition in an orderly and responsible fashion? > > If there is no "Plan B", then would be putting all of our resources > behind "Plan A". To quote Scott McNeally, "all the wood behind one > arrow".
I view this proposal as assisting Plan A. There are organizations that exist who if they began their "transition" today wouldn't finish well into 2015, and there are many structural reasons for this, not the least of which has to do with compliance standards, complex software systems, etc. > > If support for 240/4 requires IPv4 code changes then we shouldn't do it. We are talking in most cases about a very small amount of code REMOVAL. As Alain rightly pointed out, you still need to system test, but this is several orders of magnitude below the effort needed to implement IPv6. Eliot _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
