On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, "Ted Lemon" <ted.le...@nominum.com> 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. >
And natpt implementations still exist and are used by consenting adults. At a previous employer we were considering the business case for an implementation well after it's historic status. better solutions came along. > Cb > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
