Re: RFC 2893-style automatic tunneling

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

OK. When will we see this document advanced for last-call?

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Alain Durand wrote:

> The answer is in draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-00.txt:
>
>   Types of IPv6 Addresses
>
>        IPv4-compatible IPv6 address:
>
>                An IPv6 address bearing the high-order 96-bit prefix
>                0:0:0:0:0:0, and an IPv4 address in the low-order 32-
>                bits.  IPv4-compatible addresses are no longer used by
>                this specification, thus this definition is preserved in
>                the specification merely to clarify their non-use.
>
>
>    - Alain.
>
> Fred Templin wrote:
>
> > There was no answer to my question on RFC 2893-style automatic 
> > tunneling,
> > so I take this as a possible indication that no one is still using 
> > this mechanism.
> >
> > Should we move to deprecate, then? If so, what form should the 
> > deprecation take?
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
> >
> > Fred Templin wrote:
> >
> > > Is RFC 2893-style automatic tunneling (i.e., with IPv4-compatible 
> > > IPv6 addresses)
> > > used in any active deployments? It seems to me that the 
> > > functionality is obsoleted
> > > by newer automatic tunneling mechanisms (e.g., 6to4, isatap, etc.) 
> > > but I'd like to
> > > hear from those with more current operational experience.
> > >
> > > Thanks  - Fred
> > > ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com