On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

<snip> 

right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience
with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a
shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If their silicon forwarding
couldn't handle it, they weren't interested unless customers were

Somewhere in this thread Randy sent a link to his ivtf screed^H^H^H^H^H^Hposition-paper.

I think his point there was essentially: "Hey, vendors are coin operated, they build what people

are asking for, if they are willing to pay AND if there are enough of them paying"

I detect no lies here. If we didn't build the right thing from the standpoint of ISP's, they would have told us what they wanted instead. The truth is they didn't want anything but what they had with v4, and running off the cliff was multiple quarterly earnings away so who cares. IPv6 is a classic case of a standards body pushing on string, technical merits be damned. 

That people are relitigating something from 30 years ago that has been proven to not make any appreciable difference to deploability is part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is a salt mine's worth of saltiness. When the mobile guys came around and said they wanted to listen, they got the solution they could live with. That's all it took.

Mike