Re: Backwards compatability with existing IPv6 [was: Re: Networklayer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Regardless - you are hearing the same thing from more than one vendor.
Backwards compatibility with the code already implemented is a
real world requirement here, to be added to the real world requirements
we are getting from operators.

As I have been trying to say, that doesn't prevent imaginative solutions
but it does slightly constrain them: they mustn't break connectivity
for RFC 2460 systems.

   Brian

Vijay Gill wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Vijay Gill wrote:
> 
> > If the take rate of v6 starts to approach that of historical growth rate
> > of v4, then what installed base is a very valid question to ask. 100x
> > todays v6 installed base is ~ 4 doublings and thats a year worth of growth
> > in V4 space.
> 
> I am so used to taking natural logs, I forgot to do the conversion to base
> 2 as was immediately pointed out to me by several people.
> 
> I am duly abashed now.
> 
> /vijay