IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 transition technologies

itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Mon, 02 July 2007 08:39 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HRE-0006jZ-Dm; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:39:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HRC-0006jP-5j for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:39:14 -0400
Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([2001:240:501:0:204:23ff:fecb:8908]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HR8-0007Z8-Kj for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:39:14 -0400
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0D6BF233D0; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:39:09 +0900 (JST)
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:35:59 +0200" <4688B8EF.1010308@gmail.com>
References: <4688B8EF.1010308@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.8 (070521-1856/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20070702083909.0D6BF233D0@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:39:09 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 transition technologies
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> > 
> > 	i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the change of
> > 	state to "Historic".  what happend to very similar (and much more evil
> > 	IMHO) transition technology, SIIT?
> 
> If you look at draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt (the
> draft that obsoletes NAT-PT), it is quite critical of SIIT
> (RFC 2765), but does not obsolete it.
> 
> [I attempted to obsolete SIIT before it was written (RFC 1671
> section B) but that didn't work :-) . There are parts of
> RFC 1671 that are wrong, but not that part.]

	i cannot agree more.
	maybe it is time to revisit draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt?

itojun

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email