Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
>
>     > David Conrad wrote:
>
>     >> IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way.
>
>     > No it is not, 
>
> No less a person than the IPv6 'architect' himself stated that IPv6 and
> IPv4 were architecturally identical, that IPv4 got it all basically right,
> and that IPv6 was nothing more than IPv4 with a little cleaned up
> engineering.
>   
I'm sure it started out that way.  It didn't end up that way.  A few
changes here and there had rather significant (perhaps unintended) effects.

Keith


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf