Subject: Why is this thread alive? (was RE: Why IPv6 is a must?)

From: "Ian King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:59:08 -0800

Folks, 

This thread has been going on for days, and I've seen little but a
rehash of the "NATs are God's gift" vs. "NATs are the tool of Satan"
that's been going on forever.  Now it's branched off into another thread
- almost a viral thing.  If folks must continue these tired old
arguments, can this please be moved to an IPv6 forum and/or to a NAT
forum?  I'm really getting tired of (a) deleting dozens of emails each
morning and/or (b) adding yet more entries to my mail filter collection.
In Larry Masinter's parlance, this seems to be all heat and little or no
light.  I'm finding that I really want to unsubscribe from what has
become a high-noise, low-content list -- Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Manning [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:05 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: Bill Manning; Steve Deering; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

% 
% > % What's the realistic plan to prevent the IPv4 routing table from
growing % > % to 2^32 route entries? % > 
% >         trolling again? :)
% > 
% 
% it's about as reasonable as the question about the IPv6 routing table.
% 
% Keith
% 

back in the day, I told the CIDR/PIARA folks that it would be a good
idea 
to plan for 2^32 entries in the routing system and was hooted from the
fora. :)

I stand in respect for Bill Fenner who has agreed to act as the routing
area 
AD in guiding the effort to seek, prove, and deploy a reasonable routing
solution.

--bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:41:20 -0500

> - almost a viral thing.  

heaven forbid we should discuss real technical issues on the IETF -
and even worse, that we should try to discover and illuminate the 
sticking points in the technical debates that divide our community
and keep us from reaching consensus.

perhaps you would prefer that everyone simply read about what is 
happening with the network and not have any input into it?

Keith

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:14:09 -0800

Ian King wrote:
	[..]
> If folks must continue these tired old
> forum?

Judging from the new names I see chiming in, not all the pros and cons
are
old news to everyone on this list. An education is occuring for people
who've joined [email-masked] since the last time the topic was thrashed.
Hardly a bad thing.

cheers,
gja