At 10/28/2012 07:09 PM, you wrote: >On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 16:54 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > An article I wrote seven years ago but is still somewhat current > > (since IPv6 is always five years away ;-) ): > > IPv6: More Filling, Less Taste http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html > > > > And a more general slide presentation on the topic of naming and > > addressing by John Day from 2010, which points out why IPv6 is > > answering the wrong question and solving a non-problem while the > > actual problems are ignored: > > > > http://www.pouzinsociety.org/images/KoreaNamingFund100218.pdf > > >No matter how long you hold onto and continue to promote, IPv6 IS what >is happening. You don't have to like it or adopt it, but your ideas >didn't "win". At best, you will have to wait a few years and say "I >told you so. Now let's try my ideas." It's not even an issue of >whether you were/are right or wrong in your opinions...
My favorite ideas (not that I'm the lead architect behind them) haven't been fully developed yet, so they can't have won or lost yet. This takes time. IPv6 has lost many times over. The point of the articles is that *the whole concept of large address spaces is wrong*. IPv6 solves a non-problem. Yes, your dog is now getting enough cheese. This won't stop burglars, especially if you don't even have a dog. Until RINA is available, IPv4 address space is more than adequate. The protocol still sucks but inadequate address space is the least of its problems. I am thinking about writing a little opinionated history piece about where IPv6 and IPv4 and their addressing actually came from. It's a real fustercluck. You assume that the best and the brightest must have really thought it out, but it didn't quite happen that way. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
