|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <C2D6BCAE113AA34A85A78D7843D99FFB050A2D@dumptruck.photon.com> Cc: "Jason LeBlanc" <jml@packetpimp.org>, "NANOG" <nanog@merit.edu> From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:44:48 -0500 To: Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On 24-Jan-2007, at 10:01, Jamie Bowden wrote: >> Some days it kills >> me that v6 >> is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at >> with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems >> don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since >> that is what >> is most implemented, not in the colo world but what the users >> have. > > Windows XP SP2 has IPv6. It isn't enabled by default, but it's not > difficult to do. > > Apparently Vista does do IPv6 by default out of the box, but I don't > have a Vista system to play with yet to confirm this. I might argue that, legacy systems and hardware aside, the main reason that v6 might be considered non-viable these days is the lack of customers willing to pay for it. I don't think the viability of v6 has been blocking on operating systems or router hardware for quite some time, now. It's still a problem for many operational support systems, but arguably that would change rapidly if there was some prospect of revenue. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |