> The chances of getting them to accept any further > change that is visible *above* the network layer are pretty slim.
It seems that the core of the discussion assumes a node being a PC/PC-like device. Over the last 30+ years the network has probably evolved to a qualitatively new stage. For the luck of a better analogy consider a live cell that is managed from a nucleus by DNA. Essentially DNA is a database recording all the info one may need to build proteins and then to assemble even more complex structures from proteins. Observing repeatedly the unity of the universe I see no reason why the network should be any different from a living organizm. I.e. if an application drives the rest of the activity on the network an instance of that application in a communicating device must bear a globally unique identifier. IPv6 address or a part of it looks capacitive enough to become just that. If that requires a swiping change to the current mode of operations, so what? Obviously there is a good chance that more of the current mode will be re-used. Thanks, Peter --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [RRG] GSE History > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: "'RJ Atkinson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'IRTF Routing RG'" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 7:48 PM > On 2008-06-12 11:03, Tony Li wrote: > > > > > > |Of course, that was a long story in itself but I > think > > |people were deeply concerned about several points, > and > > |the proponents of 8+8 didn't answer those points > > |(well, not until quite recently). And meanwhile, a > lot > > |of Classic IPv6 code has shipped, so software inertia > > |has appeared. > > > > > > Of course, you also have to wonder just how much > inertia there is when the > > predominant implementation can't do DNS over v6. > ;-) > > > > I, for one, am to the point where all claims of > "we can't change" are simply > > folks trying to justify "we don't want > change". Sorry, non-starter. This > > is life and change is inevitable. Unless you're > still using a telegraph key > > as your primary data communications tool, you're > capable of change. > > I agree that we must not reject change. However, ten years > of IPv6 > promotion, and a few government mandates, have been needed > to get > the applications industry to the point where they have > already replaced, > or are in the process of replacing, the network interface > code in > their applications. The chances of getting them to accept > any further > change that is visible *above* the network layer are pretty > slim. > > To be clear, I'm not talking about operating system > stacks - those > are provably updateable by the service pack mechanism or > equivalent. > I'm talking (once again) about any change that affects > the socket API. > I think that's a selection criterion when we get to > picking a > recommendation. > > Brian > > -- > 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 -- 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
