On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 18:30, Troy Benjegerdes <ho...@hozed.org> wrote: > How about this... > > Nothing goes into 'master' unless it's supporting IPv6 ...
We cannot even get Cisco/Juniper/HP/etc. to do that consistently with their network gear (regardless of their claims to "support IPv6"). And they have lots of people and money to throw at the problem. [Note that this is not about moving bits, but about control plane and feature equivalency in IPv4 and IPv6.] No one will dispute that IPv6 needs to be on the OpenAFS roadmap. But it is (to the best of my knowledge) still a part of the road that is unfunded, and a part of the road that is likely to require quite a bit of infrastructure improvements behinds the scenes before the concrete is poured and one gets to cut the ribbon and someone is allowed to drive upon it. You cannot stop improvements/repairs to the rest of the existing road because you cannot finish that new and shiny and wider ipv6 section. Gary _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
