In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105101608140.19724@goat.gigo.com>, Jason Fesler wr ites:
Of course I'm assuming individual participants will do stuff, but that doesn't change that this IPv6 day as it stands now is a one-off event, not the first step towards the Ultimate Goal.
The intent is to get folks together after we digest the data, to talk about next steps. Date is not yet picked.
I'm hoping we collectively prove there is no broken user problem. I realistically expect we'll have another "v6d" - either as 24h, or as a roll-on-and-stick. But, until we get through the day, and analyze the data, any decisions on what to do next are premature.
The NANOG following v6d should be interesting; I'm hoping a number of folks from both access and content are willing to share any early stats they have.
What I would like OS and application vendors to do is test every network product they ship with 3 sets dual stack servers which are configured: * With the service on both IPv4 and IPv6. * With the service on IPv4 and the IPv6 service silently blocked. * With the service on IPv6 and the IPv4 service silently blocked. If the product is designed to work on a dual stack client it should work correctly though perhaps slowly with the server configured in all three of these states. This isn't hard and is just basic quality control. And for Apple, don't forget to prime the address cache so that both A and AAAA records are present. There is no excuse for any vendor to be currently shipping products that fail such a test. For the record Apple's current iChat (the OS (10.6.7) is completely up to date) fails such a test. It will try IPv6 and not fallback to IPv4. End users shouldn't be seeing these sorts of errors. Yes, this is name and shame. Yes, I have reported this to Apple through their web site. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org