[ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Chair election
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Schäfer
thomas at cis.uni-muenchen.de
Thu May 24 11:14:57 CEST 2018
Am 24.05.2018 um 09:18 schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson: > > Some comments: > > "Editor notes: there are a large number of ipv4-ipv6 transition and > migration strategies: Teredo, 6to4, > etc. " > > I'd just like to point out that Teredo and 6to4 aren't migration > strategies, they were basically a way to beta-test the technology. > Please do not mention them, we're way past beta testing of IPv6. Mention > things like 6RD, MAP, NAT64, ds.lite etc. I still see people thinking > 6to4 is something that should be deployed today. RFC3068 is already > obsoleted by RFC7526 (a 2015 RFC). So far so good. But in my humble opinion 6rd plays in the same class as all other ipv4-based tunnels are doing. Of course isatap and 6rd may better monitored but they still depending on ipv4. Please exclude 6rd in your recommendation. Regards, Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Still open for discussion: Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Chair election
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]