On Jun 12, 2011 6:18 PM, "Michel Py" <mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >> If you were to remove 6to4 and 6RD from the > >> picture, that would set us back 10 years > >> ago in terms of IPv6 adoption. > > > Doug Barton wrote: > > Can you explain the exact mechanism by which what you're > > concerned about will occur? I don't see anything in the > > draft which prevents an ISP from deploying 6rd. > > There is not. OTOH, I am not aware of any sizeable deployment of 6RD > outside of AS12322; 6RD may not be for everyone, and what making 6to4 > historic may prevent is: someone else using 6to4, finding out that there > are some issues, and coining another highly successful 6to4 variant that > would fit their needs better. >
The faint promise of yet another transition mechanism is hardly a motivation to keep 6to4 around. The data (ripe ...) overwhelming proves default-on 6to4 clients + thinly deployed relays = unreliable ipv6 and ipv6 deployment obstacle. Cb > Michel. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
