On Jul 3, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > I'm presuming your second comment was facetious.
>
> Mostly. Though I do think that declaring NAT historic is absolutely as valid as declaring 6to4 historic. Both 6to4 and NAT are things that are useful in some cases and cause harm in others. Except that 6to4 doesn't actually cause harm except in conjunction with other dubious practices (bogus anycast route advertisements, protocol 41 filtering, use public IPv4 addresses behind LSN) which are outside of 6to4's scope, whereas NAT inherently causes harm.
> Right. Because you are not accountable for growing the internet or customer experience. The people that say kill 6to4 are. I hope that is clear to iesg. Please look closely at the motives.
Note that the ONLY substantive thing we're arguing about here is the Historic label. I don't see any significant disagreement about the technical details.
Keith
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf