On Jun 13, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> To be fair, I think the argument is more that "ISP managed" IPv6 is >> preferred over "IPv6 tunneled by end-users through relay routers ..." > > It is exactly this sort of 'mandate it and they will come' thinking that IPv6 > has relied on since it was rammed through in 1995, over _15 years_ ago - and > we can all see how well it has worked. > > If _running out of IPv4 space_ isn't getting ISPs, etc, to deploy native > IPv6, what will? Making 6to4 historic sure isn't going to add much pressure. I going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the reason we want to depreciate 6to4 because it causes damage to end users and the resources they want to connect to. from my vantage point I have no problem serving ipv4 customers. > If 6to4 has problems, fine, write a document that says something like '6to4 > won't work for a host behind a NAT box because the host won't know it's true > IPv4 global-scope address - so you should also not turn 6to4 on by default' > and fix/publicize the issues. > > But thinking that changing the standardization level is going to push ISPs > toward providing native IPv6 - give me a break. > Noel > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf