On Jul 28, 2011 1:08 AM, "Philip Homburg" <pch-v6ops@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:56:51 -0400 you wrote:
> > In the absence of a coherent instruction from IETF for a phase-out
> > plan, declaring this protocol historic under the current proposed
> > language, will do precisely that. Please please please, if IETF
> > wants 6to4 to die, then publish a phase-out plan so that the
> > current users of 6to4 can have fair warning before the relays go
> > dark and forthcoming hardware/software upgrades rip the feature
> > out from under them.
>
> I would hope that big companies like Apple would actually do an impact
> analysis before removing a feature.
>
Like how Apple does not support Flash in iOS?
Just one example where a visionary drops an inferior solution to force a better one.
This is also known as cracking some eggs to make an omelet.
Cb
> Big content providers can measure how much 6to4 is enabled, so they can
> probably say something about trends. But that doesn't say much about how many
> users actually care about 6to4. Vendors seem to be best equiped to analyse
> the users' need for 6to4.
>
> I don't think relay operators have expressed a desire for a specific cut off
> date. So I guess they just figure out for themselves when to switch off the
> relays.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf