everyone-- My position on this draft remains unchanged. It is far too forgiving of the 6to4-PMT [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] proposal, which I regard as abominable. That reason alone, in my judgment, is sufficient grounds that it should not be published. I also share the concerns of most of the opponents of this draft. My recommendation regarding this draft, to the people inside Apple who implement customer-edge router functions, is to ignore it. It is too late to add the shared transition space to the list of special-use addresses excluded from use as 6to4 tunnel endpoints in all the units already deployed in the field. Such a disruption to existing customer configurations is generally unacceptable behavior for software updates. Also, while it might seem reasonable to add the new space to the list of special-use addresses only in *forthcoming* products that support a 6to4 tunnel router feature, that too is unlikely ever to happen. (Note well: we don't comment publicly about the features of unreleased products.) Shorter james: this draft is a bad idea; please don't publish it. -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf