Subject: RE: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:51:25 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>

    > David Conrad wrote:

    >> IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way.

    > No it is not, 

No less a person than the IPv6 'architect' himself stated that IPv6 and
IPv4 were architecturally identical, that IPv4 got it all basically right,
and that IPv6 was nothing more than IPv4 with a little cleaned up
engineering.

Those aren't his exact words, but I don't feel like wasting the time to go
find that email from him - but if you doubt that I have accurately captured
the sense of what he said, I'll be happy to look for it.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:49:21 -0400

> and that IPv6 was nothing more than IPv4 with a little cleaned up
I'm sure it started out that way.  It didn't end up that way.  A few
changes here and there had rather significant (perhaps unintended) effects.

Keith