On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Loganaden Velvindron <logan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> While I sympathize with the intent of this draft, I don’t understand why >> it’s being proposed as a standards track document. It doesn’t define any new >> protocols, nor does it contain any BCP 14 language. Rather, it’s a statement >> of policy for the IETF. I would suggest that it be published as an >> Informational RFC rather than standards track. >> >> >> Informational documents aren't consensus documents. >> > [speaking from an emerging country: Mauritius] > > Last time I spoke to local ISPs about v6, they are bay Sorry for the previous mail which is incomplete. Last time I spoke to local ISPs about v6 for home users, they told me that they were focused on getting more ipv4 addresses for their growing backbone needs. This is probably (and sadly) the case of a lot of ISPs in emerging countries. They are building voip services on top of ipv4 right now ...