From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 19:16:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A74106566B for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:16:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA688FC0A for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32407 invoked by uid 399); 30 Sep 2010 19:16:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 30 Sep 2010 19:16:50 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:16:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2a1pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:16:51 -0000 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/