On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:10 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > >> I see that some of those in the opposition to 6to4-to-historic do not agree with me that the draft is utterly harmless and will be roundly ignored by industry. Were it completely harmless I think it wouldn't meet the needs of the authors or supporters either. Clearly they would prefer that it be off as a result, or that the usage be limited to people who've deliberately turned it on and therefore can be expected to tolerate the limitations. > I think the effect of declaring something Historic is difficult to predict, and I doubt that all of "industry" will react in a uniform fashion. > > We're a long way away from having universal v6; so far away that it's still not clear that it will ever happen. We're not going to get there unless application vendors can ship code that makes good use of IPv6 (meaning the addressing and the programming model) and expect it to be able to run on customers' systems. And we're not going to get that without a transition mechanism that's better than anything we currently have. > > The 6to4-advisory document lists many ways in which 6to4 falls short of being suitable for this. So, I believe, does Teredo, for different reasons. But in order to get something better we need to be able to use some of the techniques of both. If v6ops is allowed to declare 6to4 as Historic, that can be used as a bat to quash any further development in this space. And I find that completely unacceptable. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf