Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <]

On 22-jul-04, at 12:18, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> > I don't see any benefits to removing the ip6.int delegation in the
> > first place. It makes much more sense to do this from the leaves up
> > than from the root down.
> The leaves already have started falling in many places. Doing this
> quickly will make sure that everybody knows it can be removed from 
> their
> systems and will identify the implementations that have not been
> upgraded yet.
I still don't see any reason to remove the delegation, and especially 
any reason to do it sooner rather than later. It's there, it isn't in 
the way, just leave it. We have better things to do than babysit IRC 
users who can't connect because their reverse mapping doesn't work 
anymore.

> > However, if this is going to happen, doing it this year is way too
> > soon, as current IOS and Windows XP (both in wide use) rely on 
> > ip6.int.
> IOS updates are there
In all trains that support IPv6 or just some?

> if you are using IPv6 you want to use new software (Debian 
> unstable/testing ;) anyways. Thus upgrading is not an issue.
Wait until you get a real job with real users that get you fired for 
real when you screw up their service. I have customers who run IPv6 
images on their production routers, upgrading IS a big deal there.

> FTP/Mailservers/etc are servers and should run on Windows 2003 Server
> and not on XP "Pro" or even "Home".
So now the IETF is in the business of telling people what OS they can 
use for what purpose??

> Waiting on vendors because they don't update their implementation is
> useless especially for this. They had their chance for 3 years already
> and they claim to be IPv6 compliant.
Waiting for 3 years and THEN do it moments before they're ready is 
useless. Either it should have been done immediately as there was no 
production stuff running IPv6 back then (AFAIK), or just take it 
slowly, there is no rush. Now is not the time.