Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 11:11:43PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> There's clearly a lack of consensus to support it.
> 
> There's two very vocal persons opposing it and a much larger number of
> people that support it, but have not the time to write a similarily
> large amount of e-mails.  For me, this is enough for "rough consensus".

There were several people opposing it at Last Call - enough that no amount of emails in favor would result in rough consensus.   What this is, is an attempt to railroad this through IETF without getting consensus.

> (And I second everything Lorenzo, Randy and Cameron said - there's 
> theoretical possibilities, and real world.  6to4 fails the real-world
> test.  Get over it, instead of attacking people that run real-world
> networks for the decisions they need to do to keep the networks running
> in a world without enough IPv4 addresses).

In the real world, there are lots of people successfully using 6to4, and there's no good replacement for it.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]