On 13 Sep 2012, at 06:57, "Neil J. McRae" <n...@domino.org> wrote:
> > On 12 Sep 2012, at 22:13, "Tim Chown" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> That's a very defensive attitude. And it's not what's being said, rather >> that it's very disappointing that whoever made the IT decisions didn't >> strive for the same level of aspiration. As Sam said, it's down to attitude. >> The attitude of those who provide Google and Facebook is different. > > It's very defensive when utter codswallop is being talked, and whilst google > and Facebook are important sites on the Internet there are a many many others > that are equally important that don't run IPV6. Why? Because there is no > demand and every stat that's published supports this view. Will that change? > > Absolutely and the Internet industry in the UK is doing a great job to be > ready when the demand is there. > > There are still huge gaps in IPV6 capability across the vendor space notably > in security related products and many products that claim V6 compliance that > have whopping great security issues. > DPA supports IPV6 so Backup team are ready with IPv6 backup servers as well :) Colin
