On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use
6to4v2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
It seems like there is this deep philosophical discussion about historic
status. From what I can tell, ietf sent nat-pt to historic well before nat64
came about. Many people were using nat-pt too ... but going to historic
forced things along. It was a good choice in hindsight.
Cb
_______________________________________________
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