Subject: Re: [rrg] Point of order

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:02:20 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

    > And v6 is still in sufficient flux that changes are far more practical.

I just about fell off my chair when I read that.

Some years back there was a suggestion to change TCPv6 so that the
pseudo-header (and checksum) only included the "ID" part of the IPv6 address,
and it was shot down, because 'it would cause imcompatability with the
installed base', or words to that effect.

So I'm not at all sure that the car's hood is as open as you seem to think it
might be.

	Noel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:07:39 -0700

> I just about fell off my chair when I read that.

Well, actually, I can say the same for IPv4.  ;-)

Dino

> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:02:40 -0700

> installed base', or words to that effect.

Just because one person holds an opinion doesn't make it true.  ;-)

Tony