Subject: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG

From: "Brad Stewart (brastewa)" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Aug 2010 15:20:48 -0700

> The continuation of IPv4 service during transition, what I call the
> "coexistence phase", is at this point very near term transition issue,
> and is the subject in part of
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn

my apologies for being picky again.  but is this really about
transition, or more about yet another complex solution for how to
hack ipv6 through a severely damaged ipv4 network?  i.e. it's a
we're-not-gonna-transition draft.  maybe we should call it ipv4
'intransigent' technology :)

> I would encourage the operators to read and comment on it.

are you sure you want to encourage me further?  :)

> Frankly, the final phases of transition will not be about "keeping
> IPv4 alive" as much as "how best to turn it off".

yep.  and analogously, are not the intial phases about actually
turning ipv6 on?  for real.  like not tunnels, not hacks.

randy