Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays will be removed
from their networks.
This is, of course, an undeniable statement of fact (as it is for any other
feature
of the Internet). However, it needs to be made clear that doing so *prematurely*
would penalise existing successful users of those relays, and therefore it
should
only be done when there is no successful traffic through them. Which is when any
operator would remove them anyway.
Therefore, I don't see much value in this statement, and possible harm to users.
The ways to avoid such harm as far as possible are already in the RFC Editor
queue.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-07-26 02:30, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,
After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
IETF consensus to do the following:
- add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will obsolete RFCs 3056 and 3068 and
convert their status to HISTORIC. It will also contain a new section
describing what it means for RFCs 3056 and 3068 to be classified as HISTORIC.
The new section will say that:
- 6-to-4 should not be configured by default on any implementation (hosts,
cpe routers, other)
- vendors will decide whether/when 6-to-4 will be removed from
implementations. Likewise, operators will decide whether/when 6-to-4 relays
will be removed from their networks. The status of RFCs 3056 and 3068 should
not be interpreted as a recommendation to remove 6-to-4 at any particular
time.
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will not update RFC 2026. While it
clarifies the meaning of "HISTORIC" in this particular case, it does not set
a precedent for any future case.
Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
Ron Bonica
<speaking
as OPS Area AD>
_______________________________________________
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