> From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx>
> It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers to REAL ipv6
> deployment gets shouted down
So, perhaps you can explain something to me, since nobody else has been
able to.
I think there is pretty much complete consensus that i) 6to4 doesn't work
in several very common environments (behind a NAT, etc, etc), and that
therefore, ii) at the very least, it should be disabled by default (and
therefore only turned on by knowledgeable users who know they are not in
one of those situations).
Given and assuming a document that makes all that formal, _what else_ does
the _additional_ step of making 6to4 historic buy?
Are you thinking that people will see this knob called '6to4' and turn it
on, and cause support issues? This seems unlikely to me - e.g. they don't
seem to commonly turn off DHCP on their NAT boxes (a switch most NAT boxes
seem to provide).
Or perhaps the concept is that nuking 6to4 will help force ISPs to deploy
native IPv6, since it removes one way for users to get IPv6 if their
provider doesn't supply it? If so, why not ditch Teredo, too? (Not to
mention that 'mandate it and they will come' hasn't worked to well so far.)
In short, I just cannot fathom what concrete benefit the _additional_ step
of marking the protocol 'historic' provides, _over and above_ just issuing
the 'do not enable 6to4 automatically because it has problems' document.
Can you point to such a benefit?
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf