Bill,
> Bill Manning wrote: > that still does not let the IETF determine when/if any > organization has a production ipv6 service. the IETF can > define specs and recommend practice and thats as far as > it goes, IMHO. Agree. But back to your original text: > perhaps my issue is that your original note > used the term "production", while now you use the > term "operational". they are different words w/ > distinct meanings. Without getting in the definition of what is a production network, what I meant is this: IMHO, it is reasonable to assume that the majority (literally: more than 50%) of IPv6 operators are considered reasonably competent to the extent that they operate their networks in a fashion compatible with having customers and provide them that commodity called "IPv6 service", regardless of what the precise definition of what "IPv6 service" really means at a certain point in time. In other words: If IPv6 is operational, and if we assume that most operators operate their networks within reasonable limits of what should be done, this leads to IPv6 being in production. I apologize for using two different words, but for all practical purposes what is the difference? Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
