On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
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.
And natpt implementations still exist and are used by consenting adults. At a previous employer we were considering the business case for an implementation well after it's historic status. better solutions came along. 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
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf