In message <CAD6AjGThTpvH5HgGc8RbedOcJKZ=_JLR=2t7yaajwkss1ck...@mail.gmail.com> , Cameron Byrne writes: > On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > > > > In message <968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com>, Ted Lemon > writes > > : > > > If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal > > > status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different? > > > > Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug" > > or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors > > saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases > > if it becomes historic. > > You also have content owners that say no aaaa while 6to4 is tanking > reliability stats.
You have Google Chrome and Firefox already implementing HE. You have new address selection rules out there. You have a dramatic decrease in 6to4 traffic already as a result. You have improved throughput for the 80% of machines for which 6to4 does work. We are yet to see the effects of Mac OS Lion both the 6to4 side and the HE side. > Pick your battles. > > Cb > > > This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use > 6to4v= > > > 2 because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol. > > -- > > Mark Andrews, ISC > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
