Right, but I will say that if the reply from the service provider is something else than the cost of upgrading the router to a new firmware version, then the IAD and this community has the obligation to look for an alternative provider ! Providing IPv6 in addition to IPv4 should not be done at any extra charge. At a risk to be blamed, I have the obligation to say that if an ISP (Internet Service Provider) today doesn't provide IPv6 (or at least has clear and short term plans for it), then has lost the right to be called ISP and may need to consider closing down the business. Internet is TODAY IPv6 and IPv4. Regards, Jordi > De: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:25:50 +0200 > Para: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx>, IETF General Discussion > Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: "IETF servers aren't for testing" > > Once the IETF web services are operated under a contract with the IASA, and > that contract contains text like "these servers must be reachable via > IPv4", I think it is a very reasonable idea for the IETF Administrative > Director to ask the company providing this service under contract what they > would charge extra in order to change that line in their contract to "IPv4 > and IPv6". > > At the moment, remember, the IETF's webservers are provided by a company > that is under no formal obligation to do anything requested by the IETF > community; they have chosen for reasons that seem good to them to continue > not offering IPv6 access to the IETF servers, presumably because they think > that some of the other things we have asked them to do take priority. > > I think IPv6 can wait until we have the formalities straight. > > Harald > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf