[LAC-TF] Fwd: [v6ops] Deprecating 2002::/16 - 6to4 Historic Status

[Azael Fernandez Alcantara]

Buen Dia,

He estado siguiendo los comentarios al respecto en la lista de la IETF, 
estuve en la pasada reunion y aun no hay una decision (redaccion) final, 
vamos a esperar y a opinar al respecto.
Pero si hay que reconsiderar el uso de 6to4, de acuerdo al contexto, y a
emitir recomendaciones al respecto.

Seria bueno saber el estado del uso de 6to4 en la region, ya que en la 
liga que mando Arturo Servin, no ubico a alguno en LA:
http://stats.ottix.net/ipv6/

En nuesto caso, si lo hemos y continuado utilizando en algunos contextos.

SALUDOS
____________________________________
Azael
___________________________________
Mensaje enviado sin acentos

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:

> FYI
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Christopher Palmer <Christopher.Palmer at microsoft.com>
> Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 19:43
> Subject: [v6ops] Deprecating 2002::/16 - 6to4 Historic Status
> To: "v6ops at ietf.org" <v6ops at ietf.org>
>
>
> In  “Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to
> Historic status”
>
>
>
> There is this recommendation:
>
>
>
> IANA is requested to mark the 2002::/16 prefix as "deprecated",
>
>   pointing to this document.  Reassignment of the prefix for any usage
>
>   requires justification via an IETF Standards Action [RFC5226].
>
>
>
> It is not clear why this is necessary.
>
>
>
> If major vendors were to disable 6to4 by default, that would fix the
> brokenness issue, while still allow for this prefix to be used in
> specialized or enthusiast scenarios. Isn’t any other action overkill?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Christopher.Palmer at Microsoft.com
>
> Program Manager
>
> IPv6 @ Windows
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>