> Why? They would have needed updated stacks. The routers would > have need updated stacks. The servers would have needed updated > stacks. The firewalls would have needed updated stacks. The load > balancers would have needed updated stacks. Many MIBs would have > needed to be updated. DHCP servers would have needed to be updated. > ARP would have needed to be updated, and every routing protocol. <rant> the routers had v6 code in the mid to late '90s. servers had the kame stack before then. etc etc etc. except for dhcp, of course, as the v6 religious zealots did not want to allow dhcp, it would make enterprise conversion too easy. what we did not have was a way to deploy around the fracking incompatibility. it was not until 2001 or so that we could even run useful dual stack, so we early deployers had two parallel networks for some years. religion has always been more important to the ietf than deployment. look at dhcpv6, the zealots are still stonewalling router discovery. look at the deprecation of nat-pt, now nat64/dns64. it is as if the ipv6 high priesthood did everything in their power to make ipv6 undeployable without very high cost. and they have succeeded admirably. so today, since the costs of ipv6 incompatibility and lack of feature parity are still high, for some folk it is easier to deploy nat44444. what a win for the internet. congratulations. randy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf