[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] fragmentation (Re: Could it have been different? [was Re: vm vs. memory])

On 10/25/2017 6:42 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ony li said that ipv6 was too little, too soon. this was a play on
> words, because the usual complaint is "too little, too late". tony was
> right, even moreso than i realized at the time. we specified a lot of
> things that didn't work and had to be revised or thrown out -- because
> we did not know what we needed and we thought we were in a hurry.

What you've actually summarized falls under 'too /much/ too soon'.  The 
'too much' part matches what I believe I saw.

However rather than 'too soon', one of the problems with the effort was 
that in fact people made a point of not being sufficiently in a hurry. 
This included explicit IETF presentations -- complete with charts -- 
purporting to prove that we had a decade (or whatever) before we 
actually had to make the change.

So the actual practice of the effort is, IMO, better summarized as 'too 
much too late' (and with no serious attention to adoption incentives or 
adoption effort.

The original mandate was for more address space.  All the other 
'features' that were attempted went beyond that mandate.

This was mere scope creep.  Whether because of second system syndrome or 
a failure to sufficiently feel the urgency of getting something fielded 
and working sooner rather than later, I don't know.  But I suspect it 
was both.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking