On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Simon Perreault <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Good. You are saying that this happens for ported applications, but that's only part of the story. We will have many new IPv6 applications in the future. > >> 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? I referred to this to prove that applications developers do not go ahead as documented. > > 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
