--doKZ0ri6bHmN2Q5y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:26:19PM -0500, J. Scott Kasten wrote:
>=20
> Guys,
>=20
> I'm just curious, how stable has IPv6 been for your XP boxes?
>=20
> Myself, I love v6 and have been running it internally on everything for=
=20
> some time.  The one box that is spotty with it is an SGI Irix machine.=20
> At release 6.5.23, it still has some rough edges.
>=20
> On the other hand, I've worked for a few networking companies over the=20
> years, and it just is not on corporate radars yet.  No one want's to spen=
d=20
> scarce development dollars to make networked products v6=20
> compatible/capable.  I've fought the good fight many times, but it's an=
=20
> uphill battle with a chicken and egg problem.  Executives won't fund v5=
=20
> until it's more pervasice in the market, but that won't happen unless.....

Depends on where you are. If you're only selling in the US, then yeah.

If you're selling overseas, then you can get more push for v6, especially
in Japan. Among other things, I understand the regulatory environment
there (and I don't mean ICANN) is much stricter for v4 than it is for v6;=
=20
there are business opportunities that will require v6 to happen.

Take care,

Bill

--doKZ0ri6bHmN2Q5y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFD+6c4Wz+3JHUci9cRAgGFAJ94ynAlhGMMci+BS6XvodGGEPEHTgCghOin
x43qxRNkr391ph14s0fyb6s=
=bFd5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--doKZ0ri6bHmN2Q5y--