Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> On 21/10/2017 09:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/stat
> ement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This document should provide a rationale for why you are favoring v6
> over v4
> > addresses when v4 addresses resolve first. Is there some technical reason
> > (e.g., it works better) or is there just a political reason (we want to
> push
> > people to v6).
>
> I don't think that's a political desire. IPv6 in general works better,
> because it isn't encumbered by NAT.

Can you please provide a reference to a measurement showing that this is
true?
-Ekr

So we want to push people to v6
> for technical reasons.
>

>    Brian
>
> > I could live with either, but the document should be clear IMO.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
>