On Jun 24, 2011, at 17:10 , Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > 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. Which the 6to4-advisory draft also says quite clearly. I pointed this out in the WG discussion. Everybody understands that 6to4-advisory is sufficient to send that message. No, the WG supporters of this draft are firmly convinced that 6to4-to-historic is also necessary because they mistakenly believe it does something else that 6to4-advisory does not say. The common thread tying together the sentiment expressed by practically all the supporters of 6to4-to-historic is that they want 6to4 not merely turned off by default in subscriber equipment, they also want IETF blessing for operators to ignore the recommendations in 6to4-advisory aimed at IPv6 content and network service providers for properly handling the presence of intentional 6to4 users. In shorter terms, they want to kill 6to4 dead dead dead starting yesterday. This, as others have observed, is a rather confusing message, but it's the one with rough consensus behind it. As I said before, I had hoped that IESG would take the opportunity to clarify this muddle and demand a phase-out plan for 6to4 before declaring it a historic curiosity. But no, it looks like 6to4 tunnel-router mode will be going into the same bucket as wired equivalent privacy (WEP), i.e. a technology that everyone knows is obsolete, and would like to see go away forever, but nobody wants to buy the phase-out plan for it, and so it will continue to be ubiquitous and kept in support forever. Because it works for some people with legacy gear and they don't want to change. Thanks ever so much, IESG! -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf