Re: compromise on the 6to4->Historic debate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 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.

Not that I disagree with the idea that applications should be able to fail over from one address to another, but ... why do you assume that the server is multihomed?  

The problem with the broken 6to4 relay on an anycast address is that the application (or user, or site) doesn't get to choose a different relay.  

Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]