Correct. Also as a note solving an engineering problem for the non typical user can result in more profit than the typical, and why it does interest me.
But I see your point. For some reason I thought this doc was a standards track its not. Its BCP. So now I care less from an appeal perspective. But I still think stateful is a SHOULD just like I thought sitelocal was not needed 5 years ago and DHCPv6 was needed and many did not want that to happen either. They learned. The market will decide at the end of the day. Stateful will be used initially more than statless except for handhelds and roaming devices and for stateless ad hoc deployment architectures which I admit is the majority of what I am working on now in the IPv6 user community. Stateless has new "operational" advantage IPv4 does not. Ergo a lot of people are chomping on the bit to use it. And to a point where you and I to not agree again. Those people are going to move to IPv6 far faster than we think here. They will build immediate IPv6 Intranet or Private-Internet IPv6 backbones. And they want DSTM :---). But we will do it for them out of here don't worry :--) /jim Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:53 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Mobility in Nodes Requirements > > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bound, Jim wrote: > > > > A server in a helicopter or plane is mobile for a few > > > applications. I > > > > understand I am trying to make a point that this exercise > > > needs to be > > > > focused on more than the term "node". > > > > > > Such is hardly a minimal or even typical case of IPv6. > > > > So you only want to work on the typical case in the IETF? > > > > It appears you do not care about the non typical? > > No, but we certainly *must* consider what's typical when setting > *requirements* for *all* nodes. > > Non-typical cases are fine -- and will be used, that's great, > the more IPv6 the better -- but I don't see why such should > set what the mainline does. > > I can easily envision server on a helicopter. That's a case, > of course. > But something that must be taken into consideration when > implementing the helicopter and the server. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
