On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday in the plenary in response to a request for making the IETF
servers IPv6-capable, I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF
servers for testing.
What testing? Production addresses have been routing for some time now.
In and of itself I fully agree with that statement. However, the
assumption that IPv6 is an experimental protocol and enabling it on
the various IETF servers should be considered "testing" isn't exactly
a glowing endorsement of 10 years of IETF work.
It sounds distasteful, but we should really be eating your own dog food.
Limiting myself to the www.ietf.org webservers (yes, this address
points to two different hosts) it appears this site runs on:
Server: Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat)
Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.0.40 OpenSSL/
0.9.7a
Even though these Apache versions are 2 - 3 years old (with many
vulnerabilities found and fixed in the mean time), they're fully
capable of supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around
the same age.
Agreed. It is one kernel option change and a recompile away from
supporting v6, as long as packets are properly routed to it upstream,
which is also trivial.
It would be a nice way to mark 7 years of RFC 2460 (or 10 years of
RFC 1883, both were published in december) and the closing of the
IPv6 wg with addition of IPv6 to at least the IETF WWW servers.
(BTW a big "yuck" for being behind two-faced DNS here at the IETF
meeting venue.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf