> 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. Which brings us right back to my original point: This definition of "ready" is operationally meaningless in many cases. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf