[afnog] IPv6 - some interesting reading

[Randy Bush]

>  not so - indeed I chaired one the early efforts back in 94 or so of an 
>  effort called "TACIT" that stood for transition and coexistence including 
>  testing. Then there was the NGTRANS working group which worked at this for 
>  many years. Transition took up about as much time as V6 itself. We did think 
>  hard about transition but....
>  transition was meant to happen well before IPv4 exhaustion
> 
>  no - it was industry leaving transition so late that all the assumptions 
>  about the transition are now flawed, but its too late to re-engineer the V6 
>  protocol, so we are in a little bit of a mess.

bs.  ngtrans waffled between 19 mediocre hacks and came up with teredo,
dropped nat-pt (which will now have to be taken up again), etc.  same
for the other efforts.  then the shim6 joke, which seems at least to be
dying a well-deserved death.  all were whitewashes over a disfunctional
organization refusing to acknowledge that a core design error had been
made, ipv6 is on-the-wire incompatible with ipv4 and no built-in design
for compatibility was done (e.g. variable length with 32 bit being ipv4
compatibility mode).

randy