>> v6 has one salient feature, more address space. religious >> selling does not help the case for v6. > I don't think making a server accessable over IPv6 is religious selling. > Some might even consider it 'running code', ... or don't we believe in that > anymore? with the current size of the ietf product set, one can not run all code. the fact is that all users can get to www.ietf.org. no, i can not get to it usefully using v6, readably on my i-mode phone, etc. so stick to the middle of the road. > Therein lies the problem. Unless a critical mass is using IPv6, there is > little incentive for router & dsl vendors to build it. Even when they do, > service providers are slow if not reluctant to turn it on. this assertion is false, or disingenuous at best. backbone service providers are turning it on at great pain, much of that pain due to lack of support from large router vendors. > As much as you don't like them, some of the 42 hacks are required > to establish that critical mass. nope. they *detract* from it because it makes it appear as if one *needs* all that kink to use ipv6. in fact, one needs almost nothing but real dual-stack deployment. gussying it up with 3" of pancake makeup does not make it more attractive. you have been operating on that theory for many years and it has not worked. > Bottom line, the end user doesn't know or care about IP or any > version issues. They type names, or click on links, and magic > happens. yep. as i said <http://www.ietf.org/> usually works pretty well. > It is our job to make that magic happen in more places, and as > transparently as possible. no. it is the vendors' and operators' jobs. randy