RE: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators

Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
The point still stands - without real multi-homing
so I do not have to be dependent upon a single
vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option.
Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even
considered when v6 was being engineered?

Yes, although the magnitude of the problem has been way underestimated.
Most people did not understand that it had to be built and validated
both in the core of the protocol and in policies; collectively they
promised to fix the problem "next year" and never delivered. Same as
easy renumbering, WRT to multihoming IPv6 has run on vaporware for

Are the people who started the v6 movement
really that out-of-touch with reality?

Some are, and some are not. Generally speaking, too many people had
little experience with network operations, some had experience with
little relevance to the real world with sheltered networks such as
research. This is a generic structural issue though, same as hunger in
the world and spam: no silver bullet. Retrospectively speaking, I'm not
even sure less people out-of-touch with reality in the initial phases
would have changed much.

Or were they arrogant enough to believe they
could limit control to a few entities and the
user base would just go along with it?

To a large extent, no. Although it is true that a few people from large
operators did see early on the advantages of "lock-in" addressing, the
fact of the matter is that a small routing table had the favors of lots
of people. 10 years ago, the big picture of the Internet was quite
different than it is today and the renumbering issues were not nearly as
complex as they are today.