Re: controversial paper

From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 09/30/03 

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:00:05 GMT

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Bryan Olson writes:
>
>>Why not actually find out the design rational, instead of making
>>these pronouncements from ignorance?
>
> The design rationale is irrelevant. If any constraints are placed on
> the assignment of addresses, the address space is vastly reduced.

Bleat that all you want; you claimed there was some big mistake
in IPv6 addressing. Now you cannot be bothered to learn why it
was designed as it is.

>>Try the math. You were simply writing nonsense.
>
> The math is the basis for my assertions.

Your assertion: "all they think about is 2^n, without realizing
...", was flat-out wrong. If that's all they were thinking
about, a 64-bit address space would have been more than enough.
The math shows they were clearly considering many more things.
Furthermore, the documents from the open design process show
they were thinking of things beyond the understanding shown in
your posts.

>>It's the choice *you* advocated, and it's a naive choice.
>
> Since the whole purpose of addressing is to determine the physical route
> from one computer to another, why is a geographic basis a naïve choice?

Because what we want is optimal cost within the usage policies
of the individual networks.

>>My point is that in the same posts you deride the errors of the
>>IETF, you show you don't know actually understand the issues.
>
> If you understand the issues, describe them here. Personal attacks
> do not persuade me.

If you think it's a personal attack to point out that your posts
show complete lack of understanding of the major issues, well
tough. And I'm not trying to persuade you -- heck, the Fluhrer-
Mantin-Shamir attack on Web couldn't persuade you that
cryptanalysts really crack ciphers. (O.K. now *that* was a bit
of a personal attack.) 

-- 
--Bryan