18 Nov
2011
18 Nov
'11
2:58 p.m.
On 16/11/2011 11:01, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 11/16/11 10:03 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Why is everyone focussing on the 6RD part?
No idea. Just one of incentives (initial one).
Let's stop beating around the bush: everyone is focussing on 6rd because if it weren't for 6rd, there would be no requirement for 2011-04 - simply because there are no other ipv6 migration mechanisms around which a) require vast amounts of extra v6 address space and b) look like they might actually work. As a separate issue, the policy should not be worded to mention 6rd. However, we need to acknowledge that the primary motivation for this proposal is all about enabling 6rd. Nick