Re: IPv6 transition architecture discussion

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:46:45PM -0500,
 Bound, Jim <Jim.Bound@hp.com> wrote 
 a message of 154 lines which said:

> > rightfully afraid (I sure don't want them doing it) to enable 
> > v6 by default, as connections could easily switch to using 
> > (badly working) v6.
> 
> What vendor told you they are afraid?  If you cannot state who that is
> then please retract this statement.

There was a discussion in Debian <URL:http://www.debian.org/> a while
ago and this issue was raised several times. Sorry, I do not find the
entry of the thread right now.
 
> ISPs are deploying IPv6 you simply don't know what your talking about.
...
> You have to be kidding right?   Have you ever shipped a product that a
> customer is using? 
...
> I simply disagree and strongly do not support this and ask the chairs to
> kill 90% of what you suggest as out of scope for this mail list and the
> IETF.

Such a reply to the perfectly reasonable and well-documented draft of
Pekka about the current IPv6 situation helps me to understand why the
IPv6 transition is so slow (I connected my employer to the 6bone in
1996 and I saw very little progress since). If all the IPv6 zealots
believe and act the same, IPv6 will stay a small island for many years
to come.

If you treat such concerns like you do and with words like this one,
we will soon only have trolls like Dan Bernstein to tell the simple
truth about IPv6.