Ole,
Michel Py wrote:
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.
Ole Troan wrote:
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.
That was bad wording from me indeed; instead of "constant references in
6RD to 6to4" I should have said "constant references in RFC5569 to
6to4".
I am curious about one thing though, why didn't you make RFC5969 to
obsolete RFC5569?
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf