Hi,
On 27 July 2011 22:15, Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, 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?
> >
> > Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is
> 6to4-bis.
>
> only if you're confused about the use cases for each.
In my opinion:
6to4 use case
- D.I.Y setup - no ISP involvement
- depend upon kindness of strangers to run the anycast relays
- some users have hard-to-solve reliability problems
- experimental / historic / not-recommended - should be off by default
- for users who would prefer "unreliable IPv6" to "no IPv6"
6rd use case
- configuration parameters set by ISP
- ISP runs the relays
- apparently production quality (see free.fr)
- for users who would prefer "no IPv6" to "unreliable Internet"
I agree that 6rd is not a replacement protocol for the 6to4 use case.
I will argue that the "6rd use case" is a replacement for the "6to4 use
case".
[ And that native dual-stack is a replacement for both. ]
We want normal users to move past "experimental IPv6" towards "production
IPv6".
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
