> On 4/9/12 8:17 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > > We would like to see both solution published. So that, operators can > > choose according to their own networks and preference. > > Disagree. This would hypothetically be nice for operators to have a > choice, but vendors (looks like) will not implement two slightly > different solutions in same hardware. > > On the other hand, who will make operators understand, what the > difference really is and what are the dangers deploying one or another?
Operators have their own brains. They may listen to vendors, but they do think by themselves and make decisions by themselves. Vendors would implement whatever the operators order. There are a large number of operators. There are very slim chance they will all stick on a same transition mechanism. We all know there have no one-suit-all solution for IPv4/IPv6 transition. IETF have produced many transition mechanisms. Obviously, they are not "enough". That's why we are still here to discuss more. Sheng > Cheers, Jan > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
