IPv6 for *.ietf.org services (Was: Re: respect privacy please !)

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

<SNIP privacy talk>

> The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even 
> participated)
> in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not 
> doing that,
> but we don't have a decision on that. Is that good ? Is this what we expect 
> for an open process ?
I heared one reason that there is that the IETF servers don't have IPv6
(yet) is simply because their ISP/transit/upstream doesn't do it and
thus it makes it pretty impossible unfortunatly.
The software can cope with it without problem mind you.

For the web if you really want http://www.ietf.org.sixxs.org
et tada you are going through the proxy, thus one can read the website
and all of the related sites over IPv6 if you only have IPv6
connectivity, which is quite uncommon I guess, but could happen.

As for the rest of the services, namely SMTP, that needs connectivity.
It doesn't make much sense of setting up a 'external' mailer which
handles the mail over IPv6 and passes it over IPv4 to the real machines.
If you need that just make your own MX IPv4+IPv6 complaint, which I
think, certainly in the world of today is simply required.

Also remember that the roots haven't got any published, that is in the
'.' IPv6 DNS addresses thus running 100% IPv6 is unfortunatly not
possible yet due to these obstacles...

Greets,
 Jeroen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part