On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > <SNIP privacy talk> > > > The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even participated) > > in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing that, > > but we don't have a decision on that. Is that good ? Is this what we expect for an open process ? > > I heared one reason that there is that the IETF servers don't have IPv6 > (yet) is simply because their ISP/transit/upstream doesn't do it and > thus it makes it pretty impossible unfortunatly. > The software can cope with it without problem mind you. All the services IETF servers offer are purely client-server based. There is no significant technical advantage that I could see in making them IPv6-enabled, because all such services are very usable with IPv4. On the other hand, doing so would just strengthen the illusion that wide-scale migration of all IPv4 services to IPv4/IPv6 is an important short-term goal. However, IPv6-enabling the IETF services may have _political_ justifications ("eating our own dogfood", etc.), which I'm not commenting here. See Keith Moore's excellent write-up: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf