Thomas, On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista & >> WIn7, Linux, BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely >> implemented. This plus Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it >> should be a SHOULD. > > I could probably go with a SHOULD. > > But, I wonder if we are living in the past using the above as > representative of implementations. > > When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other > electronic devices? > > I've seen various stats that say traditional PCs will be a minority of > devices accessing the Internet sometime this year. > > (Of course, the overall percentage of such devices with IPv6 makes the > argument sort of moot, but that's a detail...) To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are more likely to implement it. Agree? Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
