On 19 Jul 2011, at 02:26, Erik Kline wrote:
>> Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
>> HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
>
> I don't see any "progress".
>
> We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 clients
> behin
> "Erik" == Erik Kline writes:
>> Given that each of us reads something different into the
>> definition of HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will
>> ever converge?
Erik> I don't see any "progress".
Erik> We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6
In your letter dated Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:26:26 +0900 you wrote:
>> Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of HISTO
>RIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
>
>I don't see any "progress".
>
>We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 c
> Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
> HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
I don't see any "progress".
We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 clients
behind them and leave it at that.
___
On 2011-07-19 11:26, Erik Kline wrote:
>> Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
>> HISTORIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
>
> I don't see any "progress".
>
> We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 clients
> behind the
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: v6...@ietf.org Operations; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6
> transition issues)
>
On Jul 15, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> ipv4 is becoming less usable and it's
>> taking autotunnels with it, nobody here has a proposal that
>> changes that.
>
> As far as I can tell, IPv4 is not becoming less
> usable within my organization's network.
You realize that you have n
