On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In message <968F0B1C-D082-4A59-8213-FD58C74AF89D@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ted Lemon writes
> :
> > 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?
>
> Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug"
> or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors
> saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
> if it becomes historic.
>
You also have content owners that say no aaaa while 6to4 is tanking reliability stats.
Pick your battles.
Cb
> > This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v=
> > 2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf