IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v4v6interim] [BEHAVE] [46translation] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAD43A6B2E; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60FC3A6B24; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mGIOx0NcZgRC; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8253A6B22; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [163.117.139.230] ([163.117.139.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9ODNH8r082892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:23:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <B94D8065-FF4B-4731-A04B-C31B4D86ACDC@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: raszuk@juniper.net
In-Reply-To: <4901C8FB.80805@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:23:36 +0200
References: <48F8539D.90608@ericsson.com> <200810241309.55912.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <E1F09AB5-F343-4634-8CE9-B1C6CA92A261@muada.com> <200810241444.06688.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <372F2903-0116-45EF-87B0-304270667BBB@muada.com> <4901C8FB.80805@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: behave@ietf.org, v4v6interim@ietf.org, 46Translation <46translation@employees.org>, ext Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] [BEHAVE] [46translation] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org

On 24 okt 2008, at 15:09, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> IPv6 has been implemented years back.

> Many production network are dual stack today or even running just  
> pure v6. So with this in mind what are you proposing to tell the  
> vendors reg hints for their upcoming implementations ???

What's the alternative? Not telling them?

What I hear is that many large content outfits have trouble going to  
v6 because the vendors of their load balancers don't have an IPv6  
solution yet. (Although I'm sure part of that is just an easy way of  
shifting the blame, but I'm also fairly sure it's true in a good  
number of cases.)
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email