In 1998, I participated in Nortel's movement from one set of IPv4 numbers to another set of IPv4 numbers. It was disastrous - we ended up going back to the original IPv4 numbers even though there was a senior Unix admin per building (about 200 employees) on a Sunday afternoon to make this happen. It was a "bad cut-over" to borrow from Telecom vocabulary. More than 20 years have passed and the world is going to IPv6. In 1998, a network engineer told me that IPv6 was the answer to all the inherent problems with IPv4, but the world has still not migrated to IPv6. It took an economic incentive to allow the world to migrate and I would prefer that the routing be open source that controls this effort. This is "dual stack" at the device level, "dual stack on steroids", or "dual stack for less than a day". It remains the only solution that provides a customer with a pure IPv6 network and provides the necessary IPv4 network for the parts that are uneconomic to migrate to IPv6. As such, it deserves its own RFC and a separate job function is to provide the RFC to IETF. If Cisco can provide an RFC to IETF by demonstrating working code to IETF, then we can do it too. Let me know of your interest, either on this mailing list or privately. Mike Mazarick mike.mazarick@virtudatacenter.com 1-919-413-1274 Raleigh, NC 27607 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus