To be clear, I'd like to see exact proposed text before expressing support for the proposal. The trick is to get 6to4 disabled by default at the user end, without disabling it for users who are getting good service from it.
Regards Brian On 2011-07-26 09:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays will be removed >> from their networks. > > This is, of course, an undeniable statement of fact (as it is for any other > feature > of the Internet). However, it needs to be made clear that doing so > *prematurely* > would penalise existing successful users of those relays, and therefore it > should > only be done when there is no successful traffic through them. Which is when > any > operator would remove them anyway. > > Therefore, I don't see much value in this statement, and possible harm to > users. > The ways to avoid such harm as far as possible are already in the RFC Editor > queue. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 2011-07-26 02:30, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> Folks, >> >> After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is >> IETF consensus to do the following: >> >> - add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic >> - publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL >> >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and >> convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section >> describing what it means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as >> HISTORIC. The new section will say that: >> >> - 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts, >> cpe routers, other) >> - vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from >> implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays >> will be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should >> not be interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular >> time. >> >> >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it >> clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set >> a precedent for any future case. >> >> Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011. >> >> >> Ron Bonica >> <speaking >> as OPS Area AD> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
