On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote:
I don't know if it is intentional, however if I use Google's public
8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 resolvers, and prefer 6to4 over native IPv4
(via /etc/gai.conf under Linux/glibc), it seems that the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well
use IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to a
public IPv4 address. What is the advantage of using 6to4 over
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... about 80% of the time.
Or 99.999% of the time once you get it setup. The problem isn't 6to4, it's
*automatic* 6to4.
No, because you often end up being dependent on the whims of BGP and
third-party relays for your
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:43:23 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... about 80% of the time.
Or 99.999% of the time once you get it setup. The problem isn't 6to4, it's
*automatic* 6to4.
No, because you
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:15:17PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
I have a vested interest in anycast 6to4 continuing to exist,
This actually brings up a good argument:
are you going to pay for us to run our 6to4 relay?
not that the cost of it is high, but there is cost to it - to make sure
Hi Gert,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:51:26 +0200
Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:15:17PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
I have a vested interest in anycast 6to4 continuing to exist,
This actually brings up a good argument:
are you going to pay for us to run
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4
return-path relay as I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory recommends.
We would not
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact policy
for blacklisting has yet to be fully formalized.
But re: 6to4 in this
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:59:47 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:33 -0700
Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well use
IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to a
public IPv4 address. What is the advantage of using 6to4 over IPv4 that makes
it worth
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well
use IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to
a
In message BANLkTi=ggay2u0sx54hnv7bz7qdgrajz9h+8rwhmwkjk+9s...@mail.gmail.com
, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrot
e:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well
use IPv4, since both parties to
On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:59, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4
return-path relay as
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
Mac OS 10.6.4, which uses 6to4 by default, has a ~50x greater failure
rate when connecting to dual-stack servers than Mac OS 10.6.5 - and
the
only change is to not use 6to4 by default.
...
So
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
I don't want anybody to be misled by this statement. I think what Lorenzo
meant to say is that Mac OS X 10.6.4 and earlier doesn't implement the
policy table in I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise, which prefers IPv4 source
On Jun 10, 2011, at 09:38 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
I fundamentally disagree. I really don't think that 6to4 is used by lots of
people for applications that wouldn't just use (more reliable) IPv4 if 6to4
wasn't there.
The same is often said about IPv6 in general.
That's not meant to be
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
Indeed, that is one of its main virtues. 6to4 decouples application
deployment of v6 from network deployment of v6, and helps reduce the
chicken or egg problem.
No, it does not - in fact, it is the opposite.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
Why are you trying to make life harder for developers of IPv6 applications?
There's no reason at all that an application developer should have to set
up a special-purpose network just to test an IPv6 application.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
Again, 40-something percent of the IPv6 traffic that is observed on the net
today uses 6to4.
Please point at the data behind that assertion. In many cases in the past,
such assertions have comes from networks that do
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
deployment for server operators and content providers.
non sequitur. Existing server operators and content providers can easily
provide 6to4
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP
then.
Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are
blocking tunnels has the flavor of don't solve the problem, but
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs. I suspect that
the answer will be that much fewer users have configured tunnels than
6to4,
and that the failure rate is much lower.
Er, I'm
From: Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com
Mac OS 10.6.4, which uses 6to4 by default, has a ~50x greater failure
rate when connecting to dual-stack servers than Mac OS 10.6.5 - and the
only change is to not use 6to4 by default.
...
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
We have data that clearly shows that Mac OS 10.6.4, which uses 6to4 by
default...
I don't want anybody to be misled by this statement. I think what Lorenzo
meant to say is that Mac OS X 10.6.4 and earlier doesn't implement the policy
Lorenzo == Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com writes:
Why are you trying to make life harder for developers of IPv6
applications? There's no reason at all that an application
developer should have to set up a special-purpose network just to
test an IPv6 application.
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
This all reminds of how killing the mbone killed multicast.
Getting grumpy email from van because I sourced more than 128Kb/s killed the
mbone, it was a toy.
joel___
Ietf mailing list
You cannot expect something to be configured correctly if it is simply turned
on without a) being managed by someone or b) detection mechanisms to see if
it's working. Sadly, anycasted 6to4 meets neither of these conditions.
ISATAP meets both of these conditions:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Your argument seems to be that the peculiar operational characteristics of
6to4
should give it additional immunity to being declared historic. I don't find
that
argument persuasive.
That's not my argument. My argument is that declaring
On Jun 10, 2011, at 1:15 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
We have data that clearly shows that Mac OS 10.6.4, which uses 6to4 by
default...
I don't want anybody to be misled by this statement. I think what Lorenzo
meant to say is that Mac
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:20 , Keith Moore wrote:
Declaring 6to4 Historic certainly won't prevent people from implementing it.
But the proposed action is clearly intended to discourage implementation of
6to4. It says so explicitly. Of course some vendors will ignore it, but
some vendors
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:20 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
[...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_
technique from people for whom it is working...
Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not take away the
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't
read all of the messages, but
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:37:56 -0400 you wrote:
I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of
it
, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the
inten
t of this draft
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome
and the document shepherds report which can you can find here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/
Then you should consider
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I will claim our goal is native IPv6 along IPv4, and in the long run, IPv6
only.
We don't need more tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4, that was okay 10years
ago, maybe even 5 or 3 years ago.
Now it is time to actual do the right thing and say
Arguably, transitions technologies like 6to4 and Teredo have already achieved
their purpose. My goal at the time, more than 10 years ago, was to break the
chicken and egg deadlock between application developers and network
administrators. That's why I spent such energy on making 6to4 easy to
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
- the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the
document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and
technical soundness.
Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
Nor do I understand why, in an organization that is supposedly about
building consensus, there's such a demand for a divisive ... action.
Hey, that's been the IPv6 world since day 1. How many leading technical voices
in the community
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:48 PM
To: George, Wesley
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic
I don't intend to re-spin the discussion that took place in the WG, but I'd
like to say I do agree with the concerns raised in the LC threads by Keith and
others.
If there are 6to4 connectivity issues for some 6to4 clients, in my opinion,
those issues would be sufficiently mitigated by RFC
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 04:20:44PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
Publish it. Publish it now. Let its authors be free to pursue more useful
ends than defending it.
Well said. +1
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt(Request to move Connection of
IPv6 Domains via IPv4Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational
RFC
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:20 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:05:29AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
One voice doesn't make it consensus to drop.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
In your letter dated Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:37:56 -0400 you wrote:
I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of it
, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the inten
t of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use of 6to4,
Philip,
On 2011-06-10 03:18, Philip Homburg wrote:
...
I think this is likely to happen anyway. In all discussions it has been come
clear that 6to4 has nothing to offer for ordinary users,
In all fairness, that depends on your definition of ordinary.
Where I differ from Keith is that I don't
Hi -
From: Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
...
I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can
describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious
problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of
the standards
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 13:30, Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.comwrote:
Hi -
From: Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Arguably, transitions technologies like 6to4 and Teredo have already achieved
their purpose. My goal at the time, more than 10 years ago, was to break the
chicken and egg deadlock between application developers and network
Hi -
From: TJ trej...@gmail.com
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
...
The point is that the historic declaration can be a statement
about how
On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
Indeed, that is one of its main virtues. 6to4 decouples application
deployment of v6 from network deployment of v6, and helps reduce the chicken
or egg
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
Clearly the intent of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use
of 6to4, particularly in new implementations. You can't discourage use of
6to4 in new implementations without harming people who are already using it
and depending
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
deployment for server operators and content providers.
non sequitur. Existing server
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then.
Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking
Hi Lorenzo,
On 2011-06-10 06:20, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
deployment for server operators and content providers.
non sequitur. Existing
I agree the draft should be progressed, so add another +1 to the 'just ship it'
people.
On 9 Jun 2011, at 18:39, Keith Moore wrote:
If pain associated with 6to4 provides an additional incentive for ISPs to
deploy native v6, and for users to use native v6 when it becomes available,
that's a
On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
analogous case where RFC 1227 was declared historic, despite its
widespread use for that particular application at the time.
RFC 1227 specified an experimental
Hi -
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
...
Consider, then, RFC 1157.
It was, quite rightly
In message 000901cc270d$430ec000$6801a8c0@oemcomputer, Randy Presuhn writes
:
We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can
make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons
to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that even
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message Randy Presuhn writes:
We can't compel people to continue supporting it any more than we can
make them stop. At most, we can give them (hopefully convincing) reasons
to change. If the SNMP experience shows anything, it shows that even
that isn't enough.
I'm sorry, I seem to have goofed up during mail editing...
I meant to write that cassifying 6to4 as historic is INappropriate use
of the IETF process in the last sentence.
-Martin
Martin Rex wrote:
George, Wesley wrote:
It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
This
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:21 AM
To: George, Wesley
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
process, because it would be a political .. statement.
Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an
unfortunate precedent.
Noel
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
process, because it would be a political .. statement.
Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an
unfortunate
On 2011-06-09 04:17, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
process, because it would be a political .. statement.
Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we?
Hi -
From: james woodyatt j...@apple.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: v6...@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
Classification
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
process, because it would be a political .. statement.
Well, we've never done _that_ before, have we? Wouldn't want to set an
unfortunate precedent.
I'm much more
On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, TJ wrote:
Less than 1% of the IPv6 traffic reaching us is 6to4.
Unless you provide IPv6 only sites, you should see very little ... that is
part of the point :).
snip
It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
I agree, but get me native
On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote:
Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you
want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you
don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom you want to label as red
herrings. Again,
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
[...] And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_
technique from people for whom it is working...
Let's be very clear. This proposed RFC would not take away the 6to4
transition mechanism. The working group
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote:
Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you
want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you
don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom
On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
Do we really need to go through all this again?
As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays are working,
6to4 as a general mechanism for attachment to the
Less than 1% of the IPv6 traffic reaching us is 6to4.
Unless you provide IPv6 only sites, you should see very little ... that is
part of the point :).
snip
It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
I agree, but get me native everywhere before taking away one connection
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 08:56, George, Wesley wesley.geo...@twcable.comwrote:
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
TJ
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Tim Chown
Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops
, 2011 1:22 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to
Historic status) to Informational RFC
6to4 still has many valid use cases
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 07:41:49PM -0400, TJ wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:22, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
I strongly object to the proposed reclassification of these documents as
Historic.
*snipped lots of great thoughts/comments, solely for brevity*
Agreed
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of TJ
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Tim Chown
Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
On Jun 7, 2011 12:16 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
Do we really need to go through all this again?
As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays
-Announce
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic
status) to Informational RFC
6to4 still has many valid use cases, and there is not a suitable replacement
for it that has been deployed
After a fair amount of thought, I have decided that I support
this document without reservation.
I support the recommendation that RFC 3056/3068 support should be off
by default in CPEs; the reasons for this are clear enough in my companion
draft. Specifically, I support the choice of SHOULD NOT
George, Wesley wrote:
It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
This takes nothing away. It's not as if the day that this draft gets
published as an RFC, 6to4 stops working.
In my personal perception, the historic status used to be a technical
characterization to indicate
On Jun 7, 2011, at 5:27 PM, George, Wesley wrote:
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:21 AM
To: George, Wesley
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt
(Request to move
85 matches
Mail list logo
