Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit

[Merike Kaeo]

Good point Joe.  In some environments where I've been involved with  
v6 deployments we did actually start talking about 'adding IPv6  
capabilities' and deliberately stopped using the word 'transition'.    
It made a difference in perception (much to my surprise -  but I  
suppose when I think of IPv6 transition I know it's not replacing  
IPv4........to others it's not so transparent)

- merike

On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

>
> On 27-Mar-2009, at 22:21, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>> I think also that the time for retrospection is not yet upon us.   
>> The IPv6 transition has recently been gaining steam.
>
> I think it would be great if people could stop talking about the  
> "IPv6 transition", and in doing so help spread the message that the  
> IPv4 Internet is not going away any time soon. Common perception is  
> that IPv6 is a drop-in replacement for IPv4, hence incredulous news  
> stories such as that quoted at the head of this thread. Whatever  
> was imagined in the past, this is surely not the current  
> operational reality.
>
> What is required is not for people (service architects, content  
> providers, access providers, users) to turn off IPv4 and turn on  
> IPv6, but instead to add IPv6 capability *in addition to* IPv4. If  
> IPv6 has a future in our lifetimes (and I think it does) it is in  
> an overwhelmingly dual-stack world, not a world of v6-only clients.
>
> I think this is an important distinction. Transition implies that  
> people should wait "until IPv6 is ready" before "switching". Those  
> people will be waiting a long time.
>
>
> Joe
>