No, that addendum is not the latest. In Chicago, the SSPC voted to release an APR, and this document will be posted soon on the ASHRAE website as well as bacnet.org.
Add. AJ is under active development by the IP-WG and if you like you could sign up for the Yahoo group to join the discussion. We also have bi-weekly teleconferences and the topic will be IPv6 in each of these teleconferences up until the San Francisco meeting.
Your observation about a dual stack implementation is correct. A device which is setup to use B/IPv4 and B/IPv6 concurrently does need to route between the two which requires two network numbers.
From: bounce-41831038-8240317@... [mailto:bounce-41831038-8240317@...] On Behalf Of Kenny Kerr
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:10 AM
I have implemented BACNET for IPv4 and am now considering IPv6. Is the February 2011 “135-2008aj-1” addendum describing Annex X the latest definition of IPv6 support?
Also, given the way BACNET/IPv4 and BACNET/IPv6 device addressing is defined, it seems to me that a device supporting both IP stacks would not be able to enable them both concurrently (with the exception of a router) otherwise a device would have two different BACNET addresses. My understanding of X.1.1 is that B/IPv4 and B/IPv6 devices would have to be assigned different BACNET network numbers and thus could not support a dual stack configuration lest a device appear on two different but connected BACNET networks. Is that correct?
[- for subscription info see BACnet-L -]