On Jun 7, 2011 12:16 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> >
> > Do we really need to go through all this again?
> >
> > As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
> > a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays are working,
> > 6to4 as a general mechanism for attachment to the IPv6 Internet is FAIL.
> >
> > If someone wants to use 6to4 to interconnect his machines over an IPv4
> > infrastructure (=6to4 on both ends), nobody is taking this away.
> >
> > Gert Doering
> > -- NetMaster
>
> Exactly.
>
> Less than 1% of the IPv6 traffic reaching us is 6to4. And 6to4 in its 6to4-to-native mode is proven to be highly unreliable. It seems highly preferable to have that 1% wait for native IPv6 to be available to them, rather than being used as a reason by the bigger content providers for holding back production deployment, which is what we all want to see.
>
> It's time to remove the stabilisers on the IPv6 bicycle.
>
+1. Let's move on and not repeat this tired discussion.
Cb
> Tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf