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

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Tony Hain wrote:
>      The fact that people -can- deploy IPv6 the same way they deploy IPv4
> is a feature, not a requirement that they actually deploy it that way.
> Statements like yours only confuse people because they take it literally
> rather than in context that current deployments are not looking at the
> protocol differences beyond 'more bits'. 


Are there any documents that give adoption instructions for what are expected 
to be common scenarios?  These would be step-by-step cookbooks, with 
explanations for when they apply and when they don't?

We often create capabilities that are both easy to start using and quite 
flexibile in the considerable range of what they permit.  Focus on the latter 
and things look too complicated.  Focus only on the former and things look too 
limited.

Easy to start using is great for initial adoption and immediate benefit.

Given the adoption hurdles IPv6 has been showing, then efforts to both make it 
easy and publicize/document that it's easy could be helpful.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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