What I will do Tim is listen to all inputs till next week on this thread and then send out a new message to define what this means as part II to hear if WG has issue. Also I agree hybrid is far better than dual stack as dual stack is a misnomer WG please see PDF attachment. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:46 AM > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Capable and IPv6 ONLY for Scenarios > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:15:24AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Christian Strauf (JOIN) wrote: > > > > IPv6 ONLY should only mean a node that has NO IPv4 stack to > > > > process IPv4 packets? > > > > > > My impression is that in a lot of cases it makes sense to clearly > > > differentiate between IPv6 only stack and IPv6 only connectivity > > > [...] > > > > Agreed -- there is a potential for confusion here. I'm not sure > > whether > > it makes sense to try to define and ratify exact semantics > here, but at > > least the terminology used should be made clear. > > I think that there are many "IPv6 only" testbeds running > Linux, BSD etc where you only configure IPv6, and only use > IPv6 connectivity, despite IPv4 being present but not enabled. > > So what Pekka says is fine by me "dual stack with only IPv6 > enabled" (or perhaps more accurately "hybrid stack"). > > While innovative new, really IPv6 only devices may emerge > soon, there's > little chance we'll see, for example, "Windows v6" without > any IPv4 support > for a long, long time. The question is really what is > enabled for comms > and what the apps actually use. > > It would be nice to have common agreed language to use in all > v6ops (and > wider) IETF docs. > > Tim > >
Attachment:
dual_IP_Layer_slides.pdf
Description: dual_IP_Layer_slides.pdf