Hmmm...it's been well documented that 6to4 causes bad experiences, not decreases the chance of having them. Since much of the IPv6-accssible content is dual-stacked, unless you're using an application that implements HE, the odds are in your favor to use IPv4 rather than IPv4+6to4. Frank -----Original Message----- From: v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:25 PM To: Philip Homburg Cc: IPv6 Operations; Keith Moore; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)? 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. <snip> Keith _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf