On 11/12/13, 8:06 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the context of http://xkcd.com/927/ > > this comic part is pretty important context, but many might not have gotten > it. > > > This is a call for action to get to 14! > > So Ole is saying that we need a 14th specification/standard in order to > bind the existing 13 (although I'm not sure how he got 13) > > I'm also dismayed at the number of efforts. > It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG) and > describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one they like, > ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider. That might reduce the > field by half...
I'm pretty sure the "if we just get the right people in the room then we'll get the right one's" model isn't going to work... There's a market-place out there, that can pick one if it turns out to be necessary. The fact that to a large degree it hasn't, might mean, it's too early, none of extant ones are the right one, there isn't a market need for it, or something else. As an operator, albeit not of retail ISP networks, the fact of the matter is I don't need transition technologies of the encapsulation or translation variety to serve either my ipv4 or IPv6 customers, so asking me which I find more compelling is missing the point. > My gut is that until we have a unified story and some fielded product on > deploying v4 over v6, that for a number of ISPs, adding v6 is just added cost > with no savings. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
