Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a correct error messages to. wonder how many find 6to4 usable when ISPs start doing that? Nuclear winter or not may follow. --- Roger J --- On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A bit late since this threat will be moderated soon. But I strongly object > to this delay of needed action. > > I guess the other way the problem, which will hurt muchmuch more is maybe to > considering a filter of 6to4 on isp level? > I will suggest it when we start deploying native ipv6. > > --- Roger J. --- > > On Jul 2, 2011 6:39 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Whereas there has been considerable controversy regarding >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, the v6ops chairs and document author have >> agreed to the following course of action: >> >> - the V6OPS WG will withdraw its request to publish >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic >> - The author will introduce a new draft, intended for standards track >> publication. The new draft will update RFCs 3056 and 3068. It will say that >> if 6-to-4 is implemented, it must be turned off by default. >> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS >> WG and IETF consensus >> >> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon. >> >> Ron >> <Speaking as OPS Area AD> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf