Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04.txt> (Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status) to Informational RFC

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6 deployment for server operators and content providers.

non sequitur.   Existing server operators and content providers can easily provide 6to4 addresses for their servers and content, which will be used in preference to native v6 addresses.

No. According to Geoff's data, one of the main reasons 6to4 fails is a firewall that blocks IPv4 protocol 41 traffic. Even if content providers published 6to4 addresses, those connections would still fail.

I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then.

Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking tunnels has the flavor of "don't solve the problem, but rather, stamp out the solution". 

(And of course if the ISPs block protocol 41, that will also kill configured tunnels that happen to transit their networks.  The overall failure rate will be the same, but the granularity of failure will be higher for the configured tunnels.)

Application developers should develop using manually configured tunnels, not 6to4. At least they don't have a 20% failure rate.

How do you know?  How do you even measure the failure rate of manually configured tunnels in the aggregate?

In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs.

From where?   Again, the tunnels aren't taking the variety of paths that 6to4 connections are.  It's that variety that makes measurements such as Geoff's at all useful - it's what lets you at least believe that the measurements made at a few points are representative of the whole.

 

 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.

Please try again. You will be pleasantly surprised. 

A few months ago I was trying to set one up, but I ran out of time.   I'm really busy these days, and it's nowhere nearly as easy to set up a configured tunnel as it is to set up 6to4.

Keith

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