Le 8 oct. 2010 à 19:02, james woodyatt a écrit : > everyone-- > > IPv6 may have been born with a developmental disability, but we're not dealing with a corpse yet. The patient is still alive, getting better, and with a bit of love and proper care, might yet grow up to make better and brighter music than IPv4. > > Maybe I'm being overly sentimental and using anthropomorphism inappropriately here, but really folks > -- isn't it a bit unseemly to be arguing over how we went so "wrong" with IPv6-- 100% agreement It's time to use all what already works. It's also time to complete what already works with pieces that miss to quickly extend IPv6 use to more configurations. > and how we could do ever so much better the *next* time we get to reinvent the Internet if we avoid all the killing mistakes we made in bringing IPv6 up-- > while there are, today, more people than ever before taking what are perceived to be enormous risks actually making the v4->v6 transition start to happen? It should be largely advertised that, v4->v6 transition HAS started (fortunately, not everybody is lagging behind): - Since 2008, many users whose service providers offer IPv6 automatically access Google servers in IPv6. - For the still numerous applications that are reachable only in IPv4, they didn't lose any IPv4 connectivity. - No NATs being traversed in IPv6, Google applications that use many parallel TCP connections have no risk, for these users, to encounter any port shortage in any traversed NAT. Kind regards, RD > > > -- > james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf