With all due respect I don't care about peoples grandchildren. I have
been doing this for 25 years. 10 years is tops anything lasts of this
nature. So I don't care about after 10 years.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> �Hola!
>
> > If you want to port in an IPv4 and IPv6 independent manner you will use
> > the tools as currently specified. There is not protocol that will matter
> > besides IPv4 and IPv6 for at least the next 10 years.
>
> 10 years? If we're thinking so short-term something is bad. And if in 10
> years there are other protocols we'll be better going full speed to the
> AF independence.
>
> I wasn't thinking myself being involved with future transitions, but
> maybe my children or grandchildren will (and i'm not even married yet,
> maybe my grandchildren get old enough to be involved with that in 50
> years from now)
>
> > The debate is not
> > technical but where the future will be. This makes it hard.
>
> The question is "Will IPv6 work forever?", if the answer is yes, then there
> is nothing to talk about, if the answer is no (and I think that way) then
> we should try to help the next transitions to be easier, using what we have
> learned now.
>
> Now we need to port several thousands of applications, in 50 years there will
> be tens of thousands. If my grandchildren will be there, I'd like they could
> work with the interesting stuff (designing the protocol, implementing the
> stacks) and not with the boring, almost mechanical tasks (changing all INET6
> for INET10)
>
> We cannot think for only 10 years, 10 years is almost the time we've spent by now
> in the IPv4 -> IPv6 transition, and it is just starting (ok, maybe now things
> go faster and it will be complete in 5 years more, but yet we're at the start)
> It's unwise to look so little in the future.
>
> > API folks
> > have debated this the answer is as is specified now.
>
> It seems from the discussion that there is not a real consensus, but just a
> "that's how it is being done, don't change it".
>
> For the ones who prefer to just look a few years in the future, I'll say let
> the IPv4 mapping enabled, but that should be done in a way that doesn't
> generates problems for the people that prefer to look further.
>
> So, while things don't change, there is a problem. And that problem ought to
> be solved. I've proposed several ways to solve it and allow more choices to
> the programmers and OS implementors.
>
> > /jim
>
> HoraPe
> ---
> Horacio J. Pe�a
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
