On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 08:56, George, Wesley <wesley.geo...@twcable.com>wrote:
> > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > TJ > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:33 AM > To: Tim Chown > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt> > (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to > Historic status) to Informational RFC > > > It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle. > I agree, but get me native everywhere before taking away one connection > mechanism that does work. > > > This takes nothing away. It's not as if the day that this draft gets > published as an RFC, 6to4 stops working. IETF has moved other protocols to > historical status before they were out of heavy use, with the expectation > that it would take some time for the alternatives to be deployed and > existing implementations to be retired. This is specifically why we resisted > the idea of putting in a shutdown schedule or other flag day where the 6to4 > prefixes get null-routed, because it's likely to be different in each > network and application. > > "In order to limit the impact of end-users, it is > recommended that operators retain their existing 6to4 relay routers > and follow the recommendations found in > [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory]. When traffic levels diminish, these > routers can be decommissioned." > > Wes George > > I agree with the end goal here, but for a mechanism that relies on the good will of others (relays) changing it to "historic" could have a more-abrupt impact on those who use the mechanism than in other cases of similar demotions. That is my concern. /TJ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
