Michel,
On 2011-06-10 15:38, Michel Py wrote:
...
> On that one I agree with Keith; where's the rush? Although imperfect,
> 6to4 was an obvious path and its demise would be the failure of the
> IETF, following a long list of things that have been killed prematurely.
Who's talking about its demise? Really all that the 6to4-historic draft
does is say that it should no longer be considered as a default solution
to the problem of ISPs that don't support IPv6. Changing the formal
status of the RFCs is a symbolic step, but the real point is that it's
now time for the reluctant ISPs to get their heads out of the sand.
You're correct that some ISPs will try to get monopoly rents out of
the IPv4 shortage, and use CGN to capture customers in walled gardens,
but fortunately capitalism provides a solution to such misbehaviour:
other ISPs can deploy IPv6 as a competitive advantage.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf