On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, "Mark Townsley" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to implement it?
> >
> > Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
>
> +1
>
+1 as well as 6in4 or native v6.
The full requirements of 6to4 are based on currently unrealistic requirements for no-nat (apnic is post exhaust ) and service providers to stand up relays without a reasonable business case
> - Mark
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf