Philip, On 2011-06-10 03:18, Philip Homburg wrote: ... > I think this is likely to happen anyway. In all discussions it has been come > clear that 6to4 has nothing to offer for ordinary users,
In all fairness, that depends on your definition of "ordinary". Where I differ from Keith is that I don't think we harm the current ordinary (or extraordinary) 6to4 users by relabelling the RFCs. As long as all operators do what draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory suggests, of course. I wouldn't support the -historic draft if the -advisory draft wasn't coming along too. > and that the situation > is going to get worse over time (more NAT, more broken 6to4 installation). More NAT44, yes. But *less* broken 6to4 if operators implement -advisory. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
