IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 12 December 2014 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171AC1ACD16 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZ7igsZHvtif for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C905C1A8A8B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729491FCADE; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174DF160067; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:56:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDCF8160057; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:56:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFEB255AA6B; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:51:53 +1100 (EST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20141212181347.13220.qmail@ary.lan>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: Your message of "12 Dec 2014 18:13:47 -0000." <20141212181347.13220.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:51:53 +1100
Message-Id: <20141212215153.BAFEB255AA6B@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/35dut6W2iDscHe1T1d0-fo_KDSo
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:52:01 -0000

In message <20141212181347.13220.qmail@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >When was the last time you could actually buy a tablet, laptop,
> >desktop, cell phone that didn't support IPv6?
> 
> I have a Samsung SCH-S738C "Centura" phone running Android 4.0.4.  It
> does not support IPv6, and it's for sale all over the U.S.  It's not a
> bad phone for $40.

Since Android 4.0 supported IPv6 you need to ask Samsung why they
disabled the feature.

> Perhaps things are different in oz, but it's still going to be a very long
> time until we can ignore all of the v4-only devices that people use
> every day.

There is a difference between ignoring them and saying we need to
support them as anything other than a client by residential ISPs..

Manufactures have had over a decade to develop and fix their devices
to support IPv6.

> R's,
> John

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email