>> uh, i hate to spoil your fantasy. but large ipv4 deployments want an >> absolutely minimal, compatible, feature-match upgrade to ipv6. > > Yes of course. Isn't that what straight dual stack deployment is > meant to provide? (I don't mean that it does provide it perfectly, > but that is the goal of straight dual stack and countless people > have reported that dual stack just works.) > > The flexibility comes after that. it's been fifteen years. i guess the wonderful flexibility will come in another decade or two. btw, i hope it works through massive ipv4 natting, because that is what you religious ipv6 high priests have given us. > What we are seeing in the last few years is a search for coexistence > mechanisms for operators who are facing up to IPv4 exhaustion without > having rolled out IPv6 in time. That's not a failure of the IETF; > actually it's the IETF responding to operators. it is an abject failure of the ietf. they did not roll it out because they thought they were in business, not in religion. and ipv6's incompatibility and the high cost of its kinkiness made no business sense. randy