On Jul 3, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
I'm presuming your second comment was facetious.
Mostly. Though I do think that declaring NAT historic is absolutely as
valid as declaring 6to4 historic. Both 6to4 and NAT are things that are
useful in some cases and cause harm in others. Except that 6to4 doesn't
actually cause harm except in conjunction with other dubious practices
(bogus anycast route advertisements, protocol 41 filtering, use public IPv4
addresses behind LSN) which are outside of 6to4's scope, whereas NAT
inherently causes harm.
Right. Because you are not accountable for growing the internet or customer
experience. The people that say kill 6to4 are. I hope that is clear to iesg.
Please look closely at the motives.
Note that the ONLY substantive thing we're arguing about here is the Historic
label. I don't see any significant disagreement about the technical details.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf