Randy,
On 2012-04-04 14:41, Randy Bush wrote:
We could go on having this argument, or we could take constructive steps
to deal with the new flexibility that we have gained from IPv6,
uh, i hate to spoil your fantasy. but large ipv4 deployments want an
absolutely minimal, compatible, feature-match upgrade to ipv6.
Yes of course. Isn't that what straight dual stack deployment is
meant to provide? (I don't mean that it does provide it perfectly,
but that is the goal of straight dual stack and countless people
have reported that dual stack just works.)
The flexibility comes after that.
John,
On 2012-04-04 14:34, John C Klensin wrote:
And, for better or worse, the existence and work programs of
that large number of WGs -- seemingly growing over the years and
including SOFTWIRES and others that are more specifically
focused on transition -- leads some skeptics to conclude that we
still don't understand how to transition to IPv6
What we are seeing in the last few years is a search for
coexistence mechanisms for operators who are facing up to
IPv4 exhaustion without having rolled out IPv6 in time. That's
not a failure of the IETF; actually it's the IETF responding
to operators.
or to operate
it once we get there.
People who got there a while ago are operating IPv6 as a matter
of course. I don't see anything happening in IPv6 rollout that
didn't happen during IPv4 rollout ~20 years ago. Of course there
will be a shakedown period for every operator.
"...deploy kludges in the interim"
strategy which probably does no one any good in the long term.
Sad but true.
Brian