Subject: RE: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:56:19 -0400

>IPv6 IS IPv4 with more bits.

On the contrary it is much more if you go down behind the user and look
at the protocol and implementation.  It depends on ones view.  I am
debating this with Geoff now on his Myth article and there will another
article soon.

/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:56:38 +0200

Jim,

> debating this with Geoff now on his Myth article and there will another

In that sense you are probably right. But for the end-user, network 
manager or the Carrier financial department, it's just more bits. There 
are a number of ways that we have changed HOW things are done, but it's 
still the same things.

- kurtis -

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:01:36 +0200

On tisdag, aug 19, 2003, at 16:56 Europe/Stockholm, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 
wrote:

> manager or the Carrier financial department, it's just more bits. 
> There are a number of ways that we have changed HOW things are done, 
> but it's still the same things.

And, I think this is a _positive_ thing which actually helps IPv6 
getting deployed. People not knowing much about Internet doesn't have 
to buy another $1k/day training just because they have to enter other 
"things" in their computers.

The more it is for the end-user and basic administrator (and 
application) "just more bits", the better.

    paf

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:20:22 +0200

> "things" in their computers.

Yes, I don't think I was clear on that.

- kurtis -

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:29:51 -0700

Patrik,

>The more it is for the end-user and basic administrator (and application) 
>"just more bits", the better.

YES!  From the users perspective, the only difference should be that they 
get to run new cool applications that were not available to them previously 
(due to IPv4's limitations, NATs, etc.).

Bob

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:55:46 -0700

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> ... There 

That statement exposes the problem here. Some people want to make sure that
IPv6 does *exactly* the same things that IPv4 does, while others want IPv6
to do more. Doing them differently is not the issue. It comes down to
accepting that it is ok for some to use IPv6 as IPv4 with more bits while
somebody else does more. Unfortunately there are obstructionists that want
to make sure everyone does exactly the same thing, and no more than they
could do with IPv4.

Tony

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:56:10 +0200

>to make sure everyone does exactly the same thing, and no more than they
"getting everybody to do the same thing" ... that sounds awfully close 
to a standard
to me! Horrible!

       Leif