In message <CAD6AjGTPjhD=yiv5Pe6G4TRGKnPyzn0_nMk9v8bevmGtqu2g3A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , Cameron Byrne writes: > > 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 There are lots of things that require no-nat. 6to4 is just one of them. ISP will end up providing no-nat for those that need it the same way as they provide unfiltered port 25 for those that need it and it also shouldn't cost more. Yet there are relays out there and there are business cases to run them. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf