Zhen Cao wrote, on 2009-12-03 09:10: >> New "IPv6 apps" are usually not IPv6-only. They are version-independent. See >> e.g. RFC4038. So your future app will try IPv4 if it cannot get IPv6 >> connectivity. Which, it seems to me, would make case 4 fold into case 2. > > Hi Simon, I checked 4038 and found it is informational. And I do not > think applications developers will indeed follow this.
The fact that it is information is irrelevant. This is how applications are being developed *right now*. We have experience with this, having ported many applications to IPv6. This method is taught in seminars, books, etc. There is no speculation here. > For example, > RFC4294 defines IPsec as a MUST for IPv6 node, but from our equipment > test, we found this is a myth. How is IPsec relevant to an application? As far as I know, the IPsec API is still in early stages: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-c-api-04 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-btns-ipsec-api-requirements-00 Simon -- DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
