ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

2011-06-24 18:41:50
On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:10 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

I see that some of those in the opposition to 6to4-to-historic do not agree 
with me that the draft is utterly harmless and will be roundly ignored by 
industry. 

I think the effect of declaring something Historic is difficult to predict, and 
I doubt that all of "industry" will react in a uniform fashion.

We're a long way away from having universal v6; so far away that it's still not 
clear that it will ever happen.  We're not going to get there unless 
application vendors can ship code that makes good use of IPv6 (meaning the 
addressing and the programming model) and expect it to be able to run on 
customers' systems.  And we're not going to get that without a transition 
mechanism that's better than anything we currently have.  

The 6to4-advisory document lists many ways in which 6to4 falls short of being 
suitable for this.  So, I believe, does Teredo, for different reasons.   But in 
order to get something better we need to be able to use some of the techniques 
of both.  If v6ops is allowed to declare 6to4 as Historic, that can be used as 
a bat to quash any further development in this space.  And I find that 
completely unacceptable.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf