Bill, > waxing nostalgic... IPv6 was supposed to be an enabler of a whole > raft of interesting new capabilities. based on your concerns, listed > above, IPv6 is going to be nothing more than IPv4 with larger address > space.
I don't believe we should do something just because we can. Added complexity needs justification in the form of clear benefits. Extra operational complexity needs even more justification. >From what I've seen so far, benefits of SLs are questionable, while complications are introduced throughout the protocol stack. > if that is what we end up with, then IPv6 development might > be considered a waste of time. Interesting... Lack of SL support in many router implementations does not make people less interested in IPv6... > IPv6 had (and perhaps still has) the ability to allow us to develop > alternative routing techniques, where aggregation is not the only > abstraction that is viable. If those appear just because we can do so, I'd be skeptical. If because they solve a real problem and added complexity is not frightening--sure. Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
