On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: > In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote: >> In message <4E2F4491.30102@xxxxxxxxx>, Brian E Carpenter writes: >>> Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be >>> able to upgrade software versions - but hopefully by that time you >>> will have native IPv6 service anyway. >> >> Which is exactly why HISTORIC is NOT appropriate. > > With rfc3484-revise and the documented brokenness of 6to4, it doesn't make > any sense for implementors to offer 6to4 anyhow. False. It makes even more sense to offer 6to4 because it significantly decreases the chance that it will cause a bad experience for users of services that provide both v4 and v6 addresses, while increasing the chance letting local hosts/users talk to v6-only services/hosts. > So I think it would be > quite weird to keep 6to4 at standards track just to prevent some vendors from > dropping 6to4 support. Vendors can drop 6to4 support, or for that matter any other feature, anytime they wish. They don't need permission from IETF to do that. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf