�Hola!
> All of these have existing, _working_ IPv4 network implementation. No one
> is going to just completely replace ipv4 with ipv6 one nice afternoon.
>
> => I don't want to replace IPv4 by IPv6 next month, I want to get
> dual stacks as default ASAP. RFC 2553 is for dual stacks and
> dual stack is the main transition tool.
> You can run IPv6 only systems if you want, there is no market for them
> today and in general they are dual stack systems with IPv4 not configured
> (which is a bit different than disabled). I have some of them for DSTM
> demos (a case where the difference is important :-).
> The question is whether you believe in IPv6 or not: to ship systems
> with optional IPv6 (i.e. dual stack) support is not a positive answer.
The problem is that IPv6 support will be optional for a long time, so
crossing that as not an option is not going to work.
> Regards
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PS: (again) IPv6 is not a new protocol, IPv6 is the new version of IP.
> If you believe in this (stronger than IPv6 itself) then you can really
> understand the dual stack model (the integrated dual version model).
I won't enter into that discussion...
HoraPe
---
Horacio J. Pe�a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
