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