[address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 08:57:51AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am suggesting that the policy fixes will be infinite and ever
> more twisty, as there is only so much one can do to cover that
> the underlying technology is not even half-assed.

What's your alternative?

"I cannot make my way to the groceries store in less than 10 minutes,
so I don't go shopping at all, until... when?"

I'm very convinced that putting a proper v6 PI policy in place does buy
us enough time for to find a real solution to the perceived problem
(which, again, noone has proven to be more than a worst case scenario
yet). That solution will most probably not be IPv6. But evolution is
inherent to the Net. We need evolution. We cannot wait for the magic
42 to appear to fulfil all our needs, cover all worst case scenarios
the Netstradami paint onto the walls. We won't be able to predict the
future >>10 years, and we are far less able to design solutions now for
problems we cannot even forsee.

Or to view it from a different angle: always playing safe was never the
formula for great success. It's usually the formula for an intellectual
parking brake.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0