Maybe. But Google engineers don't live in a can - I'm sure they asked their vendors, "folks, what's the best way to go about this, in your opinion?" - and the IPv6 experts from Cisco/Juniper/others told them "here - like this" Only for Google to find out the "like this" didn't work exactly as expected - when that tidbit was fed back to the vendor, I bet they were like "hm, well, you're like the 1st one doing this. Let me get back to you on why it doesn't work as it should . . .". Don't hold your breathe. The bottom line is what Google itself says on its paper - not even the vendors are running IPv6. So the *customer* is doing the early field trial for them. Google and others end being beta testers for free, when they thought they were running production-quality, live-deployment, mission-critical ready code . . .

With all due respect - it doesn't work that way. Cisco, Juniper, HP, have a huge customer base doing IPv4, and a minimal, almost non-existent base doing IPv6. So the R&D, new features, bug fixing and such will follow the money - ie, will go to IPv4 for the time being. Yes, it sounds (and it is!) shortsighted - but when Google brings to the table, say, $50 mill a year - that is chump change compared to the many other *billions* that IPv4 still brings (and will keep bringing, for the foreseeable future) to the table. And funnily enough - it's way more easier for Linksys/D-Link/Netgear to fix a bug or implement a feature on a SOHO device than it is for Cisco - not only they don't have to care about the installed base, but their customer base is used to sub-par firmware - so were they to implement an IPv6 feature in a buggy or less-than-optimal way . . . not that much of backslash. And they also have way shorter, to none, QA cycles, backward compatibility testing, interop testing, etc.

Right there. No, not there - THERE. Can't you SEE it ? Oh well. Have some heavy pollution too in stock. Interested?