Michel,
making 6to4 historic does not affect 6rd. I think the draft says that much too.
I don't think we are saying that native necessarily is better than tunnels.
we are saying unmanaged tunnels crossing the Internet is bad.
6rd is managed and contained within a single SP's network.
cheers,
Ole
According to this:
http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/france-is-famous-for-fine-wine-cheese-and-now-
ipv6/
and some more recent direct talks in French, about half of worldwide
IPv6 traffic is French.
The bulk of it comes from a single ISP (Free, AS12322) and their IPv6 is
6RD (RFC5569, RFC5969), a variant of 6to4. Given the constant references
in 6RD to 6to4, I will point out that making 6to4 historic somehow
reduces the likeliness of another extremely successful ISP
implementation based on it.
Although Google (in
http://www.pam2010.ethz.ch/papers/full-length/15.pdf) and other
measurements classify AS12322's traffic as native, it is 6RD behind the
scenes.
If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred solution
over "tunneled", it does not hold water. If you were to remove 6to4 and
6RD from the picture, that would set us back 10 years ago in terms of
IPv6 adoption.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf