Ole, >> Michel Py wrote: >> Given the constant references in 6RD to 6to4, I will point >> out that making 6to4 historic somehow reduces the likeliness >> of another extremely successful ISP implementation based on it. > Ole Troan wrote: > making 6to4 historic does not affect 6rd. I think the draft > says that much too. I don't think we are saying that native > necessarily is better than tunnels. we are saying unmanaged > tunnels crossing the Internet is bad. That was bad wording from me indeed; instead of "constant references in 6RD to 6to4" I should have said "constant references in RFC5569 to 6to4". I am curious about one thing though, why didn't you make RFC5969 to obsolete RFC5569? Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf