Le 27 juil. 2011 à 17:29, Michel Py a écrit : > ... >>> 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. Oh, yes indeed, on can! (Depending, of course on what you mean with 6to4-bis, but no one can be sure what you mean). - 6to4 delivers native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, which 6to4 doesn't. - 6to4 has known operational problems, not 6rd. > The difference is in > who configures/manages it, > not how it works; See above. > the 6rd code base is a > superset of the 6to4. Although it has been convenient to deploy 6rd starting with existing 6to4 code, one can write 6rd code that doesn't work for 6to4. > The difference is more a matter of network design > than core protocol. It is a matter of clean IPv6 service, transparent to users, vs service for experts who know what they are doing. RD > > 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