On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, "Mark Townsley" <mark(_at_)townsley(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to
implement it?
Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is
6to4-bis.
+1
+1 as well as 6in4 or native v6.
The full requirements of 6to4 are based on currently unrealistic
requirements for no-nat (apnic is post exhaust ) and service providers to
stand up relays without a reasonable business case
- Mark
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf