IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> Thu, 03 April 2003 20:02 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09378; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:02:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 191B1k-0007xP-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:09:36 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 191B1Z-0007vo-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:09:25 -0500
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09012 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:52:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-101.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134285822E; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:43:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from berkshire.research.att.com (raptor.research.att.com [135.207.23.32]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33Jsie23627; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:54:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from research.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC8A7B4D; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:34:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com>, ietf@ietf.org, fredrik@packetfront.com, ipv6-fb@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Apr 2003 11:54:18 EST." <20030403115418.1681dd9f.moore@cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:34:10 -0500
Message-Id: <20030403173410.9EC8A7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <20030403115418.1681dd9f.moore@cs.utk.edu>, Keith Moore writes:
>> >Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code,
>> >that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not
>> >work in practice- often moreso than the standards themselves.
>> >  
>> >
>> Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's
>> commendable that they implemented IPv6 at all; it's not as if there's
>> a lot of market demand for it yet. 
>
>I'm certainly glad that they've done so; however most of their
>competitors are shipping v6 also, and some have been doing so for
>considerably longer than MS.  About the only major vendor that isn't
>shipping v6 seems to be Palm (shame on them!). 
>
Keith, I can't get upset about Microsoft declining to ship 
poorly-tested code.  Given how many security holes are due to buggy, 
poorly-tested programs, I applaud anyone who takes that seriously.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email