In message <968F0B1C-D082-4A59-8213-FD58C74AF89D(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>, Ted
Lemon writes
:
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?
Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug"
or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors
saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
if it becomes historic.
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v=
2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
--
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