michael.dillon@xxxxxx skrev:
>>> 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.
... I'd be even happier if the people who have deployed it come to the
IETF and tell us where they have had to depart from the specs/add to the
specs to get things to work properly (and whether or not some of those
were in the areas worried about in the "deprecation"), so that we can
have a spec for NAT-PT that is both useful and corresponding to
someone's reality....
Harald, admitting to spinning out subthreads...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf