IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 standard?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 18 September 2009 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BF63A6823 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rumeDIYiU9w8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F06F3A6812 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEANOqskpAZnmf/2dsb2JhbACBU7oIiFABkCsFhByBXQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,407,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="58722926"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2009 04:35:15 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8I4ZFpd025603; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:35:15 -0400
Received: from elear-mac.local (rtp-vpn4-899.cisco.com [10.82.211.131]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8I4ZE4O011093; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:35:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4AB30E00.6010100@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 standard?
References: <4E63AD59-D559-448F-A5A5-AB727AABFEA0@muada.com><04a501ca36e1$17e69790$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com><3f4922c70909160836u69ebe6fbl1f48466428987335@mail.gmail.com><4AB1078F.3020701@cisco.com> <693FDCF7-66EE-4C9C-ADAF-FE1F60E8A80B@shinkuro.com> <848EF00B003A4B4AA054AC16383333D2@GIH.CO.UK><E2B2E50E-AA04-4839-91E6-60578B20C141@shinkuro.com><0bdb01ca37e7$66dfb370$349f1a50$@net> <0EC96C28-2C54-4BBE-B24D-1684C49898D9@shinkuro.com> <C7BDE00F920D42EB95223DCABB94B138@DGBP7M81>
In-Reply-To: <C7BDE00F920D42EB95223DCABB94B138@DGBP7M81>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.97a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=299; t=1253248515; x=1254112515; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20IPv6=20standard? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Doug=20Ewell=20<doug@ewellic.org>; bh=aWQdkQsCfBbcNCrLO614NfRbleXrbGt0RzmSjDwrVgk=; b=ERCvXWPP0cpuY+dJfv6/rQ9mwJF11T+XS6K3M0PqfS+ElAoUIbtXCxqH7O nA6L8paXYvnLjOYQFnidR5IpuneHvE+TmKBKSjoUSA618daoIToFsW44DdzR NA4bf4U52Z;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 18 Sep 2009 04:34:23 -0000

> Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro dot com> wrote:
>
> And in fact, tying the "success" of IPv6 to the complete demise of
> IPv4 seems like a sure-fire way to guarantee that IPv6 will never be
> declared a "success."
>
> -

That's right!  It needs no help in failing all on its own!

;-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email