-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Keith Moore wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > "But mommy, if the geeks don't use it, they probably don't > > > > want to rely on it either, so why should I ?" > > > > > > I rely on IPv6 every single day, and I think I qualify as a > > > geek. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to fragment > > > the IPv4-based email or web infrastructures. > > > > With fragmenting you imply IPv6 only ? > > no, I'm implying that some are running IPv6 only while others > are running IPv4 only, which further implies that there are hosts that > cannot communicate with one another. I don't think that there are actually people that are running IPv6 only especially concerning SMTP. As for SMTP one dualstacked box solves that problem allowing them to communicate with both IPv6 only hosts when you are in IPv4 land and vice versa. In that respect I think there will be quite a long time before IPv4 will go away and many of the transition mechanisms are here to stay for quite some time. > as I said, I'm not against ietf.org supporting v6 SMTP. I just don't > think it's important for them to do so. > but neither is it worth taking up list bandwidth to hammer out exactly > why it is or isn't important. I've made my point; you may now have the > last word. Point taken and agreed, there are more important issues to be discussed. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP0Uk9imqKFIzPnwjEQIhzgCfVa6BAhyXJW9nN43ATX93XrusWa0AoLGk WRjl7kH3Pw8D0Zs5bOZom3qD =qgE8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
