RE: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6

["Michel Py" <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,


> Bill Manning wrote:
> that still does not let the IETF determine when/if any
> organization has a production ipv6 service. the IETF can
> define specs and recommend practice and thats as far as
> it goes, IMHO.

Agree. But back to your original text:

> perhaps my  issue is that your original note
> used the term "production", while now you use the
> term "operational".  they are different words w/
> distinct meanings.

Without getting in the definition of what is a production network, what
I meant is this: IMHO, it is reasonable to assume that the majority
(literally: more than 50%) of IPv6 operators are considered reasonably
competent to the extent that they operate their networks in a fashion
compatible with having customers and provide them that commodity called
"IPv6 service", regardless of what the precise definition of what "IPv6
service" really means at a certain point in time.

In other words: If IPv6 is operational, and if we assume that most
operators operate their networks within reasonable limits of what should
be done, this leads to IPv6 being in production.

I apologize for using two different words, but for all practical
purposes what is the difference?

Michel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------