On 02/23/2012 14:48, Ned Freed wrote: >> On 02/23/2012 13:51, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the >>> oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been "IPv6 ready for over 10 >>> years" don't involve a useful definition of the term "ready". > >> The OP specified "IPv4 only network." I suspect that if he had IPv6 >> connectivity his experience would have been quite different. I happily >> use Windows XP on a dual-stack network, for example. > > And systems running these old OS versions never under any circumstances move > from one network to another where connectivity conditions change. Riiight. Brian already covered "unconditional prefer-IPv6 was a painful lesson learned," and I'm not saying that those older systems did it right. What I am saying is that for most values of "IPv6 Ready" which included putting the system on an actual IPv6 network, they worked as advertised. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf