Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Yes but is about 6to4, not 6over4 (the one that is often confused with
6in4).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Fecha: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:08:22 -0700
> Para: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt
> 
> you might check the nanog list. There is an active discussion of the
> use of 6to4 operationally on it right now.
> 
> On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 07:10:47PM -0400, Durand, Alain wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> d) 6over4 as a transition mechanism isn't used much, it might be
>>> simpler to just suggest to
>>>     either deprecate it or rename it, then restoring the original
>>> "foo over bar" terminology
>>>     as semantically equivalent to "foo in far".
>>> 
>> 
>> I have not seen any active use of 6over4.   Given the huge (and
>> potentially
>> confusing) pool of transition/integration solutions already on the
>> table,
>> we should consider deprecating it.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
> 




************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.