Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

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

 




On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
>>>
>>> status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
>
>
> This seems like an easy question to answer.   You'd implement and use 6to4v2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
>
>

It seems like there is this deep philosophical discussion about historic status. From what I can tell, ietf sent nat-pt to historic well before nat64 came about. Many people were using nat-pt too ... but going to historic forced things along. It was a good choice in hindsight.

Cb
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
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]