On Dec 2, 2011, at 13:15 , Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
[…] I would like to point out that PMT has worked in a large production
network with much success (as ugly as one may think it is). The reality is
that it works, and works well […]
In order to retain a semblance of professional composure, I must contain my
response merely to expressing my hope that IESG pays very close attention to
the language about 6to4-PMT in this draft, and the implications and
consequences for the Internet engineering community, if it is published by IETF.
This draft is not just about extending the life of IPv4 with NAT444
deployments. It is also about expressly recommending 6to4-PMT for IPv6
service. If this draft is published as is, then I will have a much more
difficult time removing 6to4 router function from forthcoming products, as RFC
6343 recommends. Why? Because I don't want to break users who are forced by
providers to get their IPv6 service from 6to4-PMT deployment.
I hope IESG will think *very* carefully about whether it really wants to sign
up for that.
--
j h woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf