From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 23 14:47:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE6416A4B3 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pit.databus.com (p70-227.acedsl.com [66.114.70.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F87943F85 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:47:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: from pit.databus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.databus.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9NLlmYL012252; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:47:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by pit.databus.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id h9NLlmpV012251; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:47:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:47:48 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Charles Swiger Message-ID: <20031023214748.GA11818@pit.databus.com> References: <20031023194350.GA9424@pit.databus.com> <74B738D2-059F-11D8-92E1-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74B738D2-059F-11D8-92E1-003065ABFD92@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.37 cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thoughts on IPv6, was: Re: Help Broadcasting a UDP packet on the LAN:URGENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:47:50 -0000 On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:25:42PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote: > On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Barney Wolff wrote: > >My expectation is the same as yours, but I strongly believe that > >anyone doing a new design that deliberately ignores IPv6 is being very > >shortsighted. "Quite some time" is now only years, not decades. > > It might be useful to consider another perspective on IPv6: > > Begin rant from mjr :) There was *plenty* of opportunity to argue for ideas during the requirements and selection phases of IPng. People such as Noel Chiappa did so, lost and have remained critical. (fwiw, I had considerable sympathy for his ideas.) I can't comment on the behind-the-scenes stuff, if any, that went into the eventual selection, because I was not and am not an IETF insider, but there sure was plenty of public debate. Still is. It would be interesting to hear the views of folks from jp.freebsd.org and others from outside North America. But really I didn't intend to rave on about IPv6, just to propound multicast over broadcast, and that mostly because there is already a mechanism to control which interfaces to send on and to multiply packets outward. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.