IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 26 July 2011 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7085621F8866 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3RZvipHPv2r for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CC421F8541 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6QFBjkq013988 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:11:45 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p6QFBjkq013988
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1311693106; bh=FpK/IBV7jMVsSrBDVGQA2MFoKm8=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=0fC7KXeODn9yj4pTVGFQRPWC9Ln0td78II2WA2kMu0wxCmGXKYvyieHXaDPabKjgN /RP1xhlFZOwo4IGnMAv3KKOffPOWT7beBj2Z1Q50cdZ3ZiwBaZO2Kff3p/6WEKtAkI Rkkd+7YAV7SZP+nERkeSKAl0AaTF9XYOaV8UtcHY=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id n6PGBj0366137145kY ret-id none; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:11:46 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::112:7d1d:53b8:a466:28b4] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:112:7d1d:53b8:a466:28b4]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6QFBcQ5012898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:11:39 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|038a96b178501de6df9159a9611a0231n6PFF203tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|80E059EE-12CD-49D1-8426-2BC74C573108@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:11:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9763b88426148cf35a0854b3681c9799n6PGBj03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|79EEDAFB-6F9D-4F5B-B179-E420F97F98EF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F431D11F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <80E059EE-12CD-49D1-8426-2BC74C573108@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|038a96b178501de6df9159a9611a0231n6PFF203tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|80E059EE-12CD-49D1-8426-2BC74C573108@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <79EEDAFB-6F9D-4F5B-B179-E420F97F98EF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n6PGBj036613714500; tid=n6PGBj0366137145kY; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p6QFBjkq013988
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:11:51 -0000

On 26 Jul 2011, at 15:14, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
> So in summary, in practice 3484-bis and the 6to4-advisory off-by-default will further reduce what little use there is of 6to4 now, and happy eyeballs will mitigate any remaining instances of its use that are bad. So whether 6to4 is tagged Historic or not, it should be causing significantly less harm.  

To clarify, I am in favour.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email