On 02/23/2012 14:48, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 13:51, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the
>>> oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been "IPv6 ready for over
>>> 10
>>> years" don't involve a useful definition of the term "ready".
>
>> The OP specified "IPv4 only network." I suspect that if he had IPv6
>> connectivity his experience would have been quite different. I happily
>> use Windows XP on a dual-stack network, for example.
>
> And systems running these old OS versions never under any circumstances move
> from one network to another where connectivity conditions change. Riiight.
Brian already covered "unconditional prefer-IPv6 was a painful lesson
learned," and I'm not saying that those older systems did it right. What
I am saying is that for most values of "IPv6 Ready" which included
putting the system on an actual IPv6 network, they worked as advertised.
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
