IETF Logo Mail Archive

v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 03 April 2003 17:03 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29859; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:03:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 1918FV-0003oF-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:11:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1918Ev-0003lx-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:11:01 -0500
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29401 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:53:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h33GsJA09159; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:54:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 11:54:18 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com>
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf@ietf.org, fredrik@packetfront.com, ipv6-fb@microsoft.com
Subject: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))
Message-Id: <20030403115418.1681dd9f.moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3E8C5670.3070207@centive.com>
References: <CB7153628BD3724096258CBFD70AA8910753BD5B@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <3E8C2E24.19318.51AB705@localhost> <20030403094658.259cf9d6.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E8C5670.3070207@centive.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> >Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code,
> >that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not
> >work in practice- often moreso than the standards themselves.
> >  
> >
> Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's
> commendable that they implemented IPv6 at all; it's not as if there's
> a lot of market demand for it yet. 

I'm certainly glad that they've done so; however most of their
competitors are shipping v6 also, and some have been doing so for
considerably longer than MS.  About the only major vendor that isn't
shipping v6 seems to be Palm (shame on them!).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email