On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 08:56, George, Wesley <wesley.george@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TJ
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Tim Chown
Cc: v6ops@xxxxxxxx WG; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt> (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC
This takes nothing away. It's not as if the day that this draft gets published as an RFC, 6to4 stops working. IETF has moved other protocols to historical status before they were out of heavy use, with the expectation that it would take some time for the alternatives to be deployed and existing implementations to be retired. This is specifically why we resisted the idea of putting in a shutdown schedule or other flag day where the 6to4 prefixes get null-routed, because it's likely to be different in each network and application.
> It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
I agree, but get me native everywhere before taking away one connection mechanism that does work.
"In order to limit the impact of end-users, it is
recommended that operators retain their existing 6to4 relay routers
and follow the recommendations found in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory]. When traffic levels diminish, these
routers can be decommissioned."
Wes George
I agree with the end goal here, but for a mechanism that relies on the good will of others (relays) changing it to "historic" could have a more-abrupt impact on those who use the mechanism than in other cases of similar demotions. That is my concern.
/TJ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf