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 3484/bis. Specifically, by
changing priority of 6to4-to-6to4 below IPv4 (the 6to4->native IPv6 is already
placed below IPv4 by most or all existing implementations of 3484).
Once priority is changed, 6to4 basically would only be used when it is the only
channel that could work to reach a particular destination. Which means that it
could provide connectivity, when there would be no connectivity if 6to4 were
removed.
When native IPv6 is made widely available to users, they just would stop using
6to4. So, I don't understand concerns regarding "evolutionary future of 6to4".
And it unclear to me why IETF would want to take away a _transition_ technique
from people for whom it is working or why there is a need to take any action
beyond the recommendations along the lines of RFC 3484/bis.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf