On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> <SNIP privacy talk>
>
> > The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even
> > participated)
> > in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing
> > that,
> > but we don't have a decision on that. Is that good ? Is this what we expect for an
> > open process ?
>
> I heared one reason that there is that the IETF servers don't have IPv6
> (yet) is simply because their ISP/transit/upstream doesn't do it and
> thus it makes it pretty impossible unfortunatly.
> The software can cope with it without problem mind you.
All the services IETF servers offer are purely client-server based.
There is no significant technical advantage that I could see in making
them IPv6-enabled, because all such services are very usable with
IPv4. On the other hand, doing so would just strengthen the illusion
that wide-scale migration of all IPv4 services to IPv4/IPv6 is an
important short-term goal.
However, IPv6-enabling the IETF services may have _political_
justifications ("eating our own dogfood", etc.), which I'm not
commenting here.
See Keith Moore's excellent write-up:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
