On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:43:43AM -0600, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
Something about this thread confuses me :-0 Now maybe it
is just me having my head down in the sand.. I work in the
transport area mainly and last I checked:
1) TCP/SCTP and UDP all run over IPv6, in fact SCTP
(which I most work with :->) will setup an association
with BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the association,
I don't even have to choose, I get them both as long as
I open an AF_INET6 socket. :->
Yes, I see what you're saying. I think the point was, we should be actively
dissuading any further work around IPv4 protocols (where they occur), NOT
actively encouraging IPv6. By saying IPv4 is "officially" dead, we might
push forward the replacement for it (IPv6) and the takeup with both vendors
and service providers, particularly when it comes to consumer end-points.
Several people have been citing their providers as offering dual-stack
services, and how IPv6 peering with Tiscali happens, etc. but they are
completely missing the point. What we're discussing is the need for IPv6 to
be pushed out to the edge of the network to broadband users as the DEFAULT,
and not an option for those hosting servers near the core of the network,
who get it when they ask for it, which is what we mostly have now.
I'm not advocating re-drafts where we stick IPv6 Requirements into
everything in sight, however. :-)
--
Paul Robinson