RE: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > ULA,
> 
> No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy 
> IPv6? A lot of people say absolutely not. 

And if, during the next year or so of larger scale deployment
of IPv6, we discover that ULA-C is needed, then it can be made
available relatively quickly because it doesn't require upgrades
to any existing IPv6 devices or software.

Don't forget NAT-PT.

Deprecated by the IETF because its not a good long-term idea,
but it has already been deployed and if people can get some
short term use out of it, the IETF only deprecates, it doesn't
ban.

> In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is that 
> driven by a clear and compelling need from folk that are 
> seriously trying to deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap 
> in available standards. I don't doubt there is some work to 
> be done here, but it needs to be driven by a real, concrete 
> need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus".

Spot on!

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]