Now that the thread has quieted down..
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Tim Chown wrote:
I thought compatibles had (or were) being removed. That's why all reference to them was removed from the new transition mechanisms RFC update? See section 9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt. If we're doing a u-turn on that, we should catch it in this draft too.
Totally agree, of course. Including them here just adds confusion because the readers think that is another addressing format they will have to remember.
The docs at http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html and as draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt (not -02!) show good practice. Has the application-transition draft been last called yet? Could we get it pushed and cited here in this RFC update?
Application-transition was approved about 3-4 months ago, and is very soon to become RFC, and could be cited here as an informative reference.
draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt also discusses briefly the tradeoffs that the app writer has to make regarding portability because the mapped addresses are not available on all the platforms.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
