Jordi, > And actually, in general, nobody complains that any hosts in IPv4 is not able to access resources at IPv6 hosts. This is why we have the transition mechanism, that are being deployed in parallel to the IPv6 deployment. This is not true. The plan was for a short period where hosts were dual stack and then as soon as IPv6 was everywhere, turn IPv4 off. That's not where we are. I would expect the number of IPv6 only networks and services to grow. Possibly without IPv4 support at all, or where the cost and responsibility of legacy support will be pushed out towards the IPv4 only users. > Nobody is so crazy to just deploy IPv6 and do not provide those transition mechanisms. > > If that happens, clearly is the fault of somebody that doesn’t know how to do his job. This can happen exactly the same if your protocol becomes approved and some folks don’t update their hosts or routers to comply with your protocol, right? The transition has turned out to be a real pain. I understand the problem Khaled set out to solve. Unfortunately his solution is not practical nor deployable. And we have in fact tried many of the same flavours of solution before. Given Khaled's apparent non-interest in two-way communication I wouldn't imagine any number of emails would help in that regard. Best regards, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP