On Jun 10, 2011, at 15:10 , Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > I think the two documents at present encourage: > > * vendors an implementors to consider not using or a least disabling by > default 6to4 auto-tunneling in existing and future implementations. > > * the deployment of additional 6to4 anycast relays which if done would help > address issue that existing users of 6to4 who will be with us for a while as > well as those who would prefer to use it would benefit from.
I would say that I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory suffices to encourage both those things with more precision and clarity than I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic does. In fact, I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic makes a more aggressive point on the first item, and sends, at best, a very mixed message about the second. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
