Michel, making 6to4 historic does not affect 6rd. I think the draft says that much too. I don't think we are saying that native necessarily is better than tunnels. we are saying unmanaged tunnels crossing the Internet is bad. 6rd is managed and contained within a single SP's network.
cheers, Ole > According to this: > http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/france-is-famous-for-fine-wine-cheese-and-now- > ipv6/ > and some more recent direct talks in French, about half of worldwide > IPv6 traffic is French. > > The bulk of it comes from a single ISP (Free, AS12322) and their IPv6 is > 6RD (RFC5569, RFC5969), a variant of 6to4. Given the constant references > in 6RD to 6to4, I will point out that making 6to4 historic somehow > reduces the likeliness of another extremely successful ISP > implementation based on it. > > Although Google (in > http://www.pam2010.ethz.ch/papers/full-length/15.pdf) and other > measurements classify AS12322's traffic as native, it is 6RD behind the > scenes. > > If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred solution > over "tunneled", it does not hold water. If you were to remove 6to4 and > 6RD from the picture, that would set us back 10 years ago in terms of > IPv6 adoption. > > Michel. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
