On May 26, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
If you believe this, then the issue is real and is strategic, not
tactical. We have the opportunity to Do It Right, and we should.
I believe that we have the opportunity to "Do It Right", and we
should.
What are are the base assumptions about how to "Do It Right"?
Some might argue that if time isn't a consideration, the right way to
"Do It Right" is to throw out IPv6 as an abject failure and start
anew. Others might say that it is infeasible to deploy "IPngng" and
instead we need to figure out how to make what we have work. And then
you get into questions of "what we have". What we _really_ have is
IPv4. What we (arguably) sort of have, perhaps as a potential, is
"IPv6". But if you go this route, it is unlikely you'll get everyone
agreeing that the result is "right".
I've always made the assumption that the biggest enemy here is inertia
and that if we want to see something deployed in a non-infinite
timeframe, we have to leverage as much of the existing infrastructure
as possible while minimizing the number of devices that need to be
touched. Almost by definition, this won't be "right" for some value
of that variable.
The question is, what's the consensus on the requirements to "Do It
Right"?
Regards,
-drc
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
