On Dec 2, 2011, at 13:15 , Victor Kuarsingh wrote: […] I would like to point out that PMT has worked in a large production network with much success (as ugly as one may think it is). The reality is that it works, and works well […] In order to retain a semblance of professional composure, I must contain my response merely to expressing my hope that IESG pays very close attention to the language about 6to4-PMT in this draft, and the implications and consequences for the Internet engineering community, if it is published by IETF. This draft is not just about extending the life of IPv4 with NAT444 deployments. It is also about expressly recommending 6to4-PMT for IPv6 service. If this draft is published as is, then I will have a much more difficult time removing 6to4 router function from forthcoming products, as RFC 6343 recommends. Why? Because I don't want to break users who are forced by providers to get their IPv6 service from 6to4-PMT deployment. I hope IESG will think *very* carefully about whether it really wants to sign up for that. -- j h woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf