On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:47 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22-Apr-20 20:09, Loa Andersson wrote:
> All,
>
> I fully agree that we should make sure that our tools have support
> for IPv6.
>
> That said we today have tools that does not have this support.
>
> So we need an ordered transition from "old" tools (ipv4 only) to "new"
> tools (ipv support).
>
> So when you identify something that is ipv4 only, you also need to
> identify a substitute that has ipv6 support and does not add extra cost
> or extra operational complexity.
>
> /Loa
Why did anybody bother to write anything after this message from Loa, except +1?
Clearly that's the right policy for IETF tool choices to follow (and has been
for some years).
This sounds right to me, but there is an extra step non-IETF parties can take, in the interests of advocacy:
Provide services only over IPv6. One example is https://ipv6onlyhosting.com/ (no affiliation whatsoever).
thanks,
Rob
