On 4/22/20 10:04 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <d1b18b6b-4e52-6975-0ac9-480ef67142d0@xxxxxxxxx>,
Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Ben
You actually have a very point.
However I don't think it applies the very same way as IPv6. NFSv4 for
example is not an relevant protocol for Internet, is not something that
is exposed publicly, ...
Sure it is. Lots of us do remote NFS mounts over the net to retrieve
a few files.
To be blunt, refusing to use a service solely because it doesn't
handle IPv6 would be self-defeating virtue signalling.
That would only be true if there were no actual need to support
IPv6. And eating our own dogfood is not virtue signaling, it's
making sure that we understand firsthand the advantages and limitations
of our recommendations.
Again, this isn't an emergency, and there's no firm deadline (yet).
Making sure everything works with IPv6 is just being proactive.
I also suspect that there are multiple paths to address this problem
with a minimum of disruption.
Keith
