To be clear, I agree that IPv6 is in some sense "special"; I'm just asking
that you include that step of reasoning when you are arguing for us to
treat it as special.
There is nothing special about IPv6. It is the Internet Protocol and IPv4 is already legacy. And there are serious issues related to IPv4 exhaustion that perhaps many people are not yet aware.
It should already be deployed in most places and services and it's not because of many reasons like of people unwilling to do whatever necessary and treating it as something less important or even cosmetic.
In fact I get surprise often the amount of effort people put trying to find ways to not have to do it than to find out how to do.
I do my bit when I am the one who decides: I always prefer to pay for tools and SaaS that have IPv6 support, I request it from potential suppliers and in RFPs, Have turned down business already because of lack of IPv6, I make content I host available in IPv6 and so on. Yes, some of these tasks require more time to do done and that's one of the ways I get to contribute to it and show example myself.
What I am proposing is to get out of the comfort zone and start to make the same requirements mandatory in order to show example, so other people can feel they can do the same. Does anyone believe IETF should not give example in this sense ?
Regards
Fernando
