On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
I don't dispute that data. I just disagree with the notion of discouraging 6to4 in its entirety because of the current problems with advertising 6to4 relay routers using anycast addresses. I suspect that the anycast issues will largely be sorted out before this document can have much of an effect. But nevertheless, I don't have a problem with discouraging this use of anycast. I think it was a noble experiment, and we learned something valuable: Don't use anycast to advertise a service that is provided by a wide range of players, at least not without having some fairly clear guidelines about how to monitor them and weed out the broken ones.
Again, I have no problem with implementations disabling 6to4 by default. Especially given the looming threat of LSN, I became convinced that it was the right thing to do.
How do you know? How do you even measure the failure rate of manually configured tunnels in the aggregate? I don't think you can monitor that kind of traffic the way you can 6to4, because the traffic patterns are much more constrained. It's been awhile since I used manually configured tunnels (from a well-known tunnel broker). But the one time I did try them, 6to4 worked better overall - lower latency and lower failure rate. Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf