> IPv6. However, I think it would be even better to get ietf.org to add > IPv6 support so all IETF content and lists will be accessible with > IPv6. > > I periodically ask the IETF chair about this. I suggest that anyone > who thinks it is important for ietf.org to support IPv6 to send mail > to the IETF chair.
I think it's not terribly important. The principal value would be for show, not for utility. And IMHO it sends a misleading message. It's unrealistic to think that everyone is going to move mail and web to IPv6 anytime soon, and it's unrealistic to encourage people to move mail and web to IPv6. We should be concentrating on making IPv6 available for new apps, not on trying to retro-fit the two apps with the largest amount of IPv4 baggage. Of course I have no objection to anyone, including ietf.org, using IPv6 for SMTP or HTTP. I just think we're deluding ourselves if we pretend this is important, or that having IETF do this is a constructive step toward IPv6 deployment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
