On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, "Ted Lemon" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal >>> >>> status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different? > > > This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol. > >
It seems like there is this deep philosophical discussion about historic status. From what I can tell, ietf sent nat-pt to historic well before nat64 came about. Many people were using nat-pt too ... but going to historic forced things along. It was a good choice in hindsight. Cb > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
