On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
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.
All the services IETF servers offer are purely client-server based.
There is no significant technical advantage that I could see in making
them IPv6-enabled, because all such services are very usable with
IPv4. On the other hand, doing so would just strengthen the illusion
that wide-scale migration of all IPv4 services to IPv4/IPv6 is an
important short-term goal.
However, IPv6-enabling the IETF services may have _political_
justifications ("eating our own dogfood", etc.), which I'm not
commenting here.
See Keith Moore's excellent write-up:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf