ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

2011-07-27 10:10:44

In message 
<CAD6AjGTPjhD=yiv5Pe6G4TRGKnPyzn0_nMk9v8bevmGtqu2g3A(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
, Cameron Byrne writes:

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
 
There are lots of things that require no-nat.  6to4 is just one of
them.  ISP will end up providing no-nat for those that need it the
same way as they provide unfiltered port 25 for those that need it
and it also shouldn't cost more.

Yet there are relays out there and there are business cases to run
them.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf