On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In message <[email protected]>, Ted Lemon writes > : > > 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? > > Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug" > or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors > saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases > if it becomes historic. >
You also have content owners that say no aaaa while 6to4 is tanking reliability stats. Pick your battles. Cb > > This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v= > > 2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol. > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
