On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:53:13PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:14:28PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > In message <20060220190314.GD753@circe.entropie.net>, "Martin S. Weber" writes:
> > 
> > >
> > >Rather the question should be, why is INET6 in GENERIC?
> > >
> > >(to achieve a deployment it doesn't have and never will ?)
> > >
> > 
> > I'm probably going to regret posting this...
> > 
> > A certain large vendor in the upper-left corner of the US is strongly 
> > committed to IPv6.  Its next release, Vista, will *prefer* v6 
> > connections if they're available.  Rumor has it that their future plans 
> > *really* need v6.  We're better off beating on our stack now, 
> > especially anything to do with operating in a mixed environment.
> 
> Just to amplify what Steven is saying, it's no secret that Windows XP
> already supports IPv6 and one or more migration protocols (Teredo? 6to4?).

Both.

Pavel