On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, "Michel Py" <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>> 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?
>
> free.fr, which is a third of the worldwide IPv6 traffic.
>
>
> >> Fred Baker wrote:
> >> Actually, I think one could argue pretty
> >> effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
>
> Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons
> that 6to4 is.
>
>
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > only if you're confused about the use cases for each.
>
> Even if there are different use cases indeed (as you explained it very
> well yourself) you can't deny that 6rd is 6to4-bis. The difference is in
> who configures/manages it, not how it works; the 6rd code base is a
> superset of the 6to4. The difference is more a matter of network design
> than core protocol.
>
6rd also evolves 6to4 with a real and traceable support model.
Cb
> Michel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf