:: > I do agree with you that pointing fingers at this stage is really not helpful. I continue to maintain that being supportive of those content networks that are willing to wade in is the right answer. :: > :: Agreed, but, it's also important to point out when they're starting to swim in directions :: that are counterproductive, such as having help sites that advise users to turn off :: IPv6 with fixing their IPv6 capabilities as a secondary option.
"We recommend disabling IPv6 or seeking assistance in order to fix your system's IPv6 configuration through your ISP or computer manufacturer"
So, your problem is that a help page gives the user 2 options, the first one of them being a quick and easy fix that a user can do himself in less then a minute, and suggesting contacting the ISP or manufacturer *second* (and possibly spending quite a bit of time on hold/troubleshooting, and then saying "screw it")?!?
Vs. other more useful options which I have spelled out elsewhere in this thread, yes.
Honestly, I think the people who want ipv6 to work, and are willing and capable to troubleshoot it, will; and those who don't will just turn it off... Seems like the right outcome to me..
We can agree to disagree. Turning it off really isn't a good outcome because it just postpones the inevitable. Encouraging people to call their ISPs to troubleshoot their IPv6 problems accomplishes two things: 1. It raises visibility of the need for IPv6 at the eyeball ISPs. It shows that there are users encountering things that cause them to care about IPv6 working. 2. It helps users resolve their IPv6 problems and get working IPv6. I applaud your employer's efforts to get IPv6 deployed and their leadership in working towards IPv6 day. Hopefully they can eventually take a more positive leadership position towards successful eyeball transitions as well. Owen