Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:16:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) Message-ID: <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/30/2010 12:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 28 Sep 2010, at 23:27, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 9/22/2010 1:32 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote: >> | Hello, >> | >> | Can anyone try a patch for adding 6rd (RFC 5569) support to stf(4)? >> >> Well I don't want to be "Mr. Negativity," but I'd like to suggest that >> adding this support is the wrong way to go. STF and teredo are >> transition mechanisms, and we're currently knee-deep (well maybe >> ankle-deep) in the deployment of IPv6. This is only going to pick up >> steam in the next few years given the impending run-out of the free /8s >> in the IANA pool. > > I disagree with you and I want to see this going in. Perhaps you could provide a little more information about the basis for your opinion, as I attempted to do for mine? If for no other reason than to help educate me on why I'm wrong? Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CA4E221.4060107>