Michel Py wrote:
On that one I agree with Keith; where's the rush? Although
imperfect, 6to4 was an obvious path and its demise would be
the failure of the IETF, following a long list of things
that have been killed prematurely.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Who's talking about its demise? Really all that the 6to4
historic draft does is say that it should no longer be
considered as a default solution to the problem of ISPs
that don't support IPv6.
I'm not qualified to debate procedural issues, but I will say that, from
a distance, this does smell like a kill-what-we-don't-like. As you have
undoubtedly felt the irony of me defending Keith on this kind of issue,
I will confess that there is a little part of me that did not mind a bit
seeing him getting a taste of his own food in that matter, but I still
think this is premature.
but the real point is that it's now time for the
reluctant ISPs to get their heads out of the sand.
I don't think making 6-to-4 historic will change anything in that
regard, which is why I said above that it did look like a
You're correct that some ISPs will try to get monopoly
rents out of the IPv4 shortage, and use CGN to capture
customers in walled gardens, but fortunately capitalism
provides a solution to such misbehaviour: other ISPs can
deploy IPv6 as a competitive advantage.
It does not matter, as long as the core of the "haves" don't do anything
about it, as they command a big enough market share. Besides, you have
not convinced me and not many ISPs either.
I understand what you are trying to do here; nevertheless, 1Pv6 has not
reached critical mass; although I do understand the "disable 1Pv6" issue
(probably better than most) and I do indeed recognize that some of the
brokenness comes from 6to4, it does not change the fact that deprecating
6to4 will reduce the sub-critical mass before it starts chain reaction,
if it ever does.
Ietf mailing list