[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
- To: "Brian E Carpenter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
- From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:46:39 -0400
- Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:46:46 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AcJY1uZZEANNfXeUSKeSQwOKmiA8lQAAcEUw
- Thread-topic: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
We cannot encourage XPs to do anything Brian. What will do that is not here in the IETF. This is the ego I was talking about. The market just wants our specs not our wisdom in the IETF. I am having discussions with XPs in other fora and be glad to discuss this with you offline. But this body is to build standards.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
> Francis Dupont wrote:
> > In your previous mail you wrote:
> > > => I am not convinced by 6to4. For instance by the
> 6to4-relay concept.
> > 6to4 relays cause some rather interesting problems,
> especially relating to
> > quality of service (too few of them at the moment,
> leading to huge
> > delays connecting to 6to4 nodes from some areas).
> If the worst problem with 6to4 is already a purely operational one,
> I'm not at all distressed, and I wonder whether we can encourage
> all XPs to operate a 6to4 relay?