In message <92FB2780-5F10-4173-A982-12E114BFF130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keith M oore writes: > I really think that the right answer is to write an applicability statement f > or 6to4 that: > > - refers to the existing documents about 6to4 problems > - points out use cases for 6to4 which work well, and others that work less we > ll > - emphasizes that 6to4 is a short-term solution and was always intended to be > such > > Deprecating 6to4 and declaring it Historic are premature and overkill, but an > applicability statement seems entirely appropriate to me. > > Beyond that, the question of anycast advertisement for 6to4 relay routers (RF > C 3068) is a tough one. I'd like to find a way to be able to keep them, beca > use there's a huge utility in being able to automatically configure such thin > gs. But everybody acknowledges the problems that are caused when relay route > rs are advertised in BGP that don't actually get the traffic there. If ther > e's not a way to weed out the bad ones that is easy for operators to implemen > t, maybe RFC 3068 really should be deprecated. > > Keith Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the Internet. Applications should cope well with one address of a multi-homed server being unreachable. Billions of dollars have been wasted because this has not been seen as a basic requirement for applications. It really isn't any harder in most cases to do this right. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf