On Jul 28, 2011 1:08 AM, "Philip Homburg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:56:51 -0400 you wrote: > > In the absence of a coherent instruction from IETF for a phase-out > > plan, declaring this protocol historic under the current proposed > > language, will do precisely that. Please please please, if IETF > > wants 6to4 to die, then publish a phase-out plan so that the > > current users of 6to4 can have fair warning before the relays go > > dark and forthcoming hardware/software upgrades rip the feature > > out from under them. > > I would hope that big companies like Apple would actually do an impact > analysis before removing a feature. >
Like how Apple does not support Flash in iOS? Just one example where a visionary drops an inferior solution to force a better one. This is also known as cracking some eggs to make an omelet. Cb > Big content providers can measure how much 6to4 is enabled, so they can > probably say something about trends. But that doesn't say much about how many > users actually care about 6to4. Vendors seem to be best equiped to analyse > the users' need for 6to4. > > I don't think relay operators have expressed a desire for a specific cut off > date. So I guess they just figure out for themselves when to switch off the > relays. > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
