dual vs hybrid stack [RE: IPv6 Capable and IPv6 ONLY for Scenarios]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
[tim:]
>> So what Pekka says is fine by me "dual stack with only IPv6 
>> enabled" (or perhaps more accurately "hybrid stack").
>
> Also I agree hybrid is far better than dual stack
> as dual stack is a misnomer WG please see PDF attachment. 

I'm not sure if I understand what is the difference between "dual" and
"hybrid" stacks.  I'm not 100% sure what the two slides wanted to convey.  
I got the impression that "hybrid" referred to the practice where the
kernel and the rest of the OS tries to implement just one generic IP
stack, and reuse and extend that to the IP versions as appropriate (and
dual stack would mean literally two completely separate IP stacks or
functionalities).

Whatever the intent, the key point of course is that the term "dual-stack"  
has been used to refer to the external behaviour of the implementation,
that is, that both the protocols are implemented.  I don't think there's
really much difference (in the context of IETF) how it's actually done.  

I would think that "dual stack"  is probably the best term to use here, if
not for any other reason, than that it seems to have become an established
term already..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings