Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
"Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> writes:
Norbert> Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com> wrote:
>> But what about transition mechanisms, or would that be unfair?
Norbert> IMO it would be unfair on IPv6 to do the test without
We should provide transition mechanisms only if we believe they are
a good idea.
So far I think we want to recommend dual stack. So, we need to think
about this outage more as a way to get ourselves experience with IPV6,
not as a network configuration anyone should be expected to use on a
regular basis.
Dual stack is a transition mechanism. The idea is that ISPs provide
dual-stack service up to the customer edge for some time, during
which a gradual migration to v6 takes place, ideally without end
users being forced to pay attention to any changes.
If this works out, after this phase there would be phase in the
transition during which ISPs no longer provide v4 service up to
the customer edge, but provide for some other sort of transition
mechanism to allow their customers to communicate with the IPv4-only
hosts that still exist.
I believe that it is that second transition phase that this test
should aim to simulate.
Greetings,
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf