On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, "Michel Py"
<michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
wrote:
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?
free.fr, which is a third of the worldwide IPv6 traffic.
Fred Baker wrote:
Actually, I think one could argue pretty
effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons
that 6to4 is.
Keith Moore wrote:
only if you're confused about the use cases for each.
Even if there are different use cases indeed (as you explained it very
well yourself) you can't deny that 6rd is 6to4-bis. The difference is in
who configures/manages it, not how it works; the 6rd code base is a
superset of the 6to4. The difference is more a matter of network design
than core protocol.
6rd also evolves 6to4 with a real and traceable support model.
Cb
Michel.
_______________________________________________
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