On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Hi, > > Yesterday in the plenary in response to a request for making the IETF > servers IPv6-capable, I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF > servers for testing. What testing? Production addresses have been routing for some time now. > > In and of itself I fully agree with that statement. However, the > assumption that IPv6 is an experimental protocol and enabling it on > the various IETF servers should be considered "testing" isn't exactly > a glowing endorsement of 10 years of IETF work. > > It sounds distasteful, but we should really be eating your own dog food. > > Limiting myself to the www.ietf.org webservers (yes, this address > points to two different hosts) it appears this site runs on: > > Server: Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) > Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.0.40 OpenSSL/ > 0.9.7a > > Even though these Apache versions are 2 - 3 years old (with many > vulnerabilities found and fixed in the mean time), they're fully > capable of supporting IPv6, as are Red Hat Linux versions of around > the same age. Agreed. It is one kernel option change and a recompile away from supporting v6, as long as packets are properly routed to it upstream, which is also trivial. > > It would be a nice way to mark 7 years of RFC 2460 (or 10 years of > RFC 1883, both were published in december) and the closing of the > IPv6 wg with addition of IPv6 to at least the IETF WWW servers. > > (BTW a big "yuck" for being behind two-faced DNS here at the IETF > meeting venue.) > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf