On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:43:43AM -0600, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote: > Something about this thread confuses me :-0 Now maybe it > is just me having my head down in the sand.. I work in the > transport area mainly and last I checked: > > 1) TCP/SCTP and UDP all run over IPv6, in fact SCTP > (which I most work with :->) will setup an association > with BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the association, > I don't even have to choose, I get them both as long as > I open an AF_INET6 socket. :-> Yes, I see what you're saying. I think the point was, we should be actively dissuading any further work around IPv4 protocols (where they occur), NOT actively encouraging IPv6. By saying IPv4 is "officially" dead, we might push forward the replacement for it (IPv6) and the takeup with both vendors and service providers, particularly when it comes to consumer end-points. Several people have been citing their providers as offering dual-stack services, and how IPv6 peering with Tiscali happens, etc. but they are completely missing the point. What we're discussing is the need for IPv6 to be pushed out to the edge of the network to broadband users as the DEFAULT, and not an option for those hosting servers near the core of the network, who get it when they ask for it, which is what we mostly have now. I'm not advocating re-drafts where we stick IPv6 Requirements into everything in sight, however. :-) -- Paul Robinson