<>start snip<> > the point that "if IPv4 is supported better, in any way, than IPv6, on > a device, then there is incentive to not use IPv6". This broader issue in conjunction with all that exists on an IPv4 gateway may not be needed on an IPv6 gateway, warrants the set of MUST and SHOULD/MAY IPv6 features. That was the intent of my suggestion. <>end snip<>
I am interested to understand 'how' you want to quantify the IPv6 vs IPv4 service experience. G/ -----Original Message----- From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rajiv Asati (rajiva) Sent: zaterdag 8 januari 2011 0:19 To: Joe Touch Cc: int-area@ietf.org; IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Int-area] IP-capable nodes must support IPv6 -newdraft-george-ipv6-required Joe, > Yes, there ought to be a list of IPv6 requirements, ala RFCs 1122, > 1123, and 1812 (and their supplementary RFCs). Ditto. I am sure that we could come up with few more. > But there's a broader issue - > the point that "if IPv4 is supported better, in any way, than IPv6, on > a device, then there is incentive to not use IPv6". This broader issue in conjunction with all that exists on an IPv4 gateway may not be needed on an IPv6 gateway, warrants the set of MUST and SHOULD/MAY IPv6 features. That was the intent of my suggestion. Cheers, Rajiv _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
