[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

Jens Link wrote on 03/10/2019 11:34:
> - IT MUST have NAT
> - It MUST have Classes
> - IT MUST have DHCP
> - It MUST have ARP
> - It should be possible to drop ICMP the same impact as in IPv4. Many
>    experts I talked to over the years told me that blocking ICMP has
>    no negative impacts.
> - It MUST only have numbers and dots "."
> - There should be absolutly no reasons to use "[ ]" in URLs

There's nothing wrong with a good volte-face presentation, but I'd 
suggest you avoid positions of 
opinion-dressed-up-as-sound-technical-argument.

This would be relevant to your bullet points about NAT, DHCP, ARP, and 
the wisdom of using pseudo-in-line signalling protocols and how they 
should be managed.  IPv6 suffers from a good deal of second system 
effect, and many of the "improvements" it brings to the table have in 
retrospect turned out to be pointless or some cases quite harmful, e.g. 
heavy dependence on multicast and how this scales in large networks, the 
complexity of ND, extension headers, the DHCP va RA debacle, the 
pathological antipathy of many people towards NAT and many other things.

Also, in case anyone is under the mistaken impression that ipv6 is 
classless, you will probably want to mention that the ietf 6man working 
group is hopelessly divided on draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6 (of 
which I am a coauthor), which has ended up with the draft being blocked.

Unless and until that draft - or something similar - makes it through to 
rfc status, IPv6 remains de facto a fully classful addressing protocol.

Otherwise, I'm sure everyone can agree on your only remaining point, 
namely that colons are better than dots in every conceivable way.  This 
is a sound technical position btw.  I will argue the case in exchange 
for beer and peanuts.

Nick