On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, "Michel Py" <mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > > >>> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long > >>> term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses > >>> to design a v2, who is going to implement it? > > free.fr, which is a third of the worldwide IPv6 traffic. > > > >> Fred Baker wrote: > >> Actually, I think one could argue pretty > >> effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis. > > Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons > that 6to4 is. > > > > Keith Moore wrote: > > only if you're confused about the use cases for each. > > Even if there are different use cases indeed (as you explained it very > well yourself) you can't deny that 6rd is 6to4-bis. The difference is in > who configures/manages it, not how it works; the 6rd code base is a > superset of the 6to4. The difference is more a matter of network design > than core protocol. >
6rd also evolves 6to4 with a real and traceable support model. Cb > Michel. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
