Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg

[Marc Blanchet]

Le 11-03-03 11:38, Hannigan, Martin a écrit :
>>>              ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego
>>> IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned
>>> by the cluelessness. . .
>>
>> Almost the same at Polycom. Your system can registered either via IPv4
>> or via IPv6.  Exclusive OR!
>>
>
> I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue. I would guess
> that it's a processor limit = cost. Why would you need to dual stack your
> phone regardless?
>

- another phone vendor also does either v4 or v6.
- we have helped phone manufacturers and PBX for porting to IPv6.
- the main reason for the exclusive OR was simplicity for end users: as 
plug and play as possible, simpler scenarios (don't need to tackle 
complex IPv4-IPv6 scenarios), given the fact that the typical deployment 
scenario is the phone only talks to the PBX and using a single IP is 
what is needed.
- not related to processor or memory constraints.
- I'm not trying to excuse anyone, because they shall be at the end 
really support dual-stack, but I'm giving some context.

Regards, Marc.

> Best,
>
> -M<


-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca