On Jul 3, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > > I'm presuming your second comment was facetious. > > > > Mostly. Though I do think that declaring NAT historic is absolutely as > > valid as declaring 6to4 historic. Both 6to4 and NAT are things that are > > useful in some cases and cause harm in others. Except that 6to4 doesn't > > actually cause harm except in conjunction with other dubious practices > > (bogus anycast route advertisements, protocol 41 filtering, use public IPv4 > > addresses behind LSN) which are outside of 6to4's scope, whereas NAT > > inherently causes harm. > > > > Right. Because you are not accountable for growing the internet or customer > experience. The people that say kill 6to4 are. I hope that is clear to iesg. > Please look closely at the motives. >
Note that the ONLY substantive thing we're arguing about here is the Historic label. I don't see any significant disagreement about the technical details. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
