On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:14:28PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <20060220190314.GD753@circe.entropie.net>, "Martin S. Weber" writes:
> 
> >
> >Rather the question should be, why is INET6 in GENERIC?
> >
> >(to achieve a deployment it doesn't have and never will ?)
> >
> 
> I'm probably going to regret posting this...
> 
> A certain large vendor in the upper-left corner of the US is strongly 
> committed to IPv6.  Its next release, Vista, will *prefer* v6 
> connections if they're available.  Rumor has it that their future plans 
> *really* need v6.  We're better off beating on our stack now, 
> especially anything to do with operating in a mixed environment.

Just to amplify what Steven is saying, it's no secret that Windows XP
already supports IPv6 and one or more migration protocols (Teredo? 6to4?).
Mac OS X, too, supports IPv6 and 6to4.

My OS X laptop, my NetBSD desktop, and my various development servers
have global IPv6 reachability, in spite of my IPv4-only ISP, thanks in
no small part to Microsoft's 6to4 gateway.

Speaking as one who had to wrangle a NAT firewall recently to get an
application to work, I look forward to the day when an IPv6 connection
is the norm, and NAT is a distant memory.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933