On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote: > > Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom you want to label as red herrings. Again, 40-something percent of the IPv6 traffic that is observed on the net today uses 6to4. That's about as much as Teredo, it's a hell of a lot more than native v6. As long as 6to4 is one of the major ways that people get IPv6 connectivity (and it clearly is), it's premature to declare 6to4 historic. You see 40% of your IPv6 traffic as 6to4, we see rather less than 1%. Our observation point is as a university on an academic/research network that is native dual-stack. We probably have most of our IPv6 traffic come from other universities around the world, who are also most likely natively connected. Hence little if any need for transition methods. This may be different to your scenario, of course, but it is hopefully a future that will be more widespread in time. We did use 6to4 in its router-to-router, site-to-site flavour many years ago while a project called 6NET ran, but have had no use case for it since. Perhaps it would be useful to see your use cases more clearly documented with examples. > Almost all usage of IPv6 today is in spite of ISPs. For that matter, a great many successful IPv4 applications today are deployed in spite of ISPs. Again, ISPs in general have let us down, and 6to4 and Teredo are carrying ~90% of IPv6 traffic. ISPs are not in a good position to demand that 6to4 be deprecated. We see even less Teredo, i.e. the sum of the 6to4 and Teredo we see is under 1% of our total IPv6 traffic. I don't know where you see 90%; I assume it's an environment with home-to-home networks, with no broker or IPv6 VPN use? > That's excellent news. But the current proposal on the table to deprecate 6to4 is premature, confusing, and harmful to real users. The problem is that 6to4 is unfortunately also harmful to real users, at least the ones that don't want to know about IPv6. It will continue to be until we can be confident no vendor anywhere has 6to4 on by default, won't it? The question is whether Historic stops knowledgeable people like you using 6to4 safely in your own context/community, without affecting 'normal' users. Does it mean 6to4 off be default, or 6to4 removed from product? > It's not one versus the other. 6to4 is helping to promote ubiquitous IPv6. The other view is that 6to4 is delaying ubiquitous IPv6 deployment, by adding brokenness. Geoff's stats illustrate that very well, though those are not based on vanilla 6to4. Tim _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf