We know. I recommend you read the whole thread before reacting. -mel beckman
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >> >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to >> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. > > Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory. > > This change was made in favor of resource constrained nodes (think micro > controllers with very small memories). > >> There's really no excuse for not supporting IPSec, as it's a widely >> available open source component that costs nothing to incorporate into an >> IPv6 stack. > > Simply not true. There are nodes which have no need for it and are resource > constrained. > >> Your observation simply means that users must be informed when buying IPv6 >> devices, just as they must with any product. You can buy either genuine IPv6 >> or half-baked IPv6 products. When I speak of IPv6, I speak only of the >> genuine article. > > This is true. If you need the device to support IPv6, you should definitely > make sure that it does, but that is ordinary reality with any feature of any > product rather than anything specific to IPv6. > > Owen >
