[e2e] the evolution of deployability

[Christian Huitema]

> At 10:36 AM 12/17/2002 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> >At 12:58 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> >>C and M, I'm fairely sure, have no religion other than $$$, and
would
> have
> >>sold the customers sky-blue left-handed rabbits if that's what the
> customers
> >>wanted. They sold NAT boxes because that's what customers wanted.
> >
> >and are right now selling IPv6 - both M and C, and btw J (who is
making a
> >Big Deal about it).
> 
> Years late and features short.   Try to use the IPv6 in Windows XP.
Try
> to get instructions on how to set it up correctly.   For a company
that
> tries to claim Plug and Play as its own (and has done a pretty darn
good
> job on 802.11) the IPv6 configuration looks like a Ph.D. thesis
project
> that is not quite done, but the advisor signed off on it anyway.   I'd
be
> ashamed to ship such crap.

Oh boy, are we in a good mood today... 

Discussion of Microsoft's IPv6 stack are best carried on the specialized
newsgroup "microsoft.public.platformsdk.networking.ipv6", which is
accessible from the information page http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/,
which contains a pretty clear description of what is "signed off": for
practical matters, Windows XP with service pack 1 applied, and later
releases.

That being said, I definitely object to your characterization of "IPv6
configuration (being) a Ph.D thesis project." IPv6 self configures with
a single line of command in XP-gold ("ipv6 install") or by checking the
"Microsoft IPv6" box in an interface's property on XP-SP1 and latter
releases. In a production environment, there is nothing else to
configure on the client.

-- Christian Huitema