everyone--
My position on this draft remains unchanged. It is far too forgiving of the
6to4-PMT [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] proposal, which I
regard as abominable. That reason alone, in my judgment, is sufficient grounds
that it should not be published. I also share the concerns of most of the
opponents of this draft.
My recommendation regarding this draft, to the people inside Apple who
implement customer-edge router functions, is to ignore it. It is too late to
add the shared transition space to the list of special-use addresses excluded
from use as 6to4 tunnel endpoints in all the units already deployed in the
field. Such a disruption to existing customer configurations is generally
unacceptable behavior for software updates. Also, while it might seem
reasonable to add the new space to the list of special-use addresses only in
*forthcoming* products that support a 6to4 tunnel router feature, that too is
unlikely ever to happen. (Note well: we don't comment publicly about the
features of unreleased products.)
Shorter james: this draft is a bad idea; please don't publish it.
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, core os networking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf