A little later, it occured to me that maybe what the market might be missing is a statement from the IETF, IESG and/or IAB, that IPv6 is now *ready*, and can be deployed in production via the available transition mechanisms, slowly replacing IPv4 (+ NAT). Maybe the market is really just waiting for the engineers behind IPv6 to say "it's basically finished, its now ready for you to use, pending your applications being ported".
I personally would be very surprised if either the market is waiting for a blessing or IPv4 is deprecated. You might ask yourself whether moving RIP to historic (deprecated) and OSPF as "required for implementation in all routers"
1058 Routing Information Protocol. C.L. Hedrick. Jun-01-1988. (Format:
TXT=93285 bytes) (Updated by RFC1388, RFC1723) (Status: HISTORIC)2328 OSPF Version 2. J. Moy. April 1998. (Format: TXT=447367 bytes)
(Obsoletes RFC2178) (Also STD0054) (Status: STANDARD)RFC 1812, section 7.2.1: "A router that implements any routing protocol (other than static routes) MUST IMPLEMENT OSPF (see Section [7.2.2]). A router MAY implement additional IGPs."
has significantly affected anyone's willingness to configure RIP routing in a network. What *has* affected people's willingness to deploy or to do application work is a perception of someone else being willing to pay for them doing so and belief that it solves a problem they have.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
