On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Indeed, that is one of its main virtues. 6to4 decouples application deployment of v6 from network deployment of v6, and helps reduce the "chicken or egg" problem.
No, it does not - in fact, it is the opposite.
Geoff has presented data that shows that anycasted 6to4 as a connectivity mechanism has a failure rate of the order of 20-30%. We have data that clearly shows that Mac OS 10.6.4, which uses 6to4 by default, has a ~50x greater failure rate when connecting to dual-stack servers than Mac OS 10.6.5 - and the only change is to not use 6to4 by default. Search the list archives for details.
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6 deployment for server operators and content providers. And if you believe the access networks, the lack of IPv6 content is one of the most significant barriers to IPv6 deployment in access networks.
Application developers should develop using manually configured tunnels, not 6to4. At least they don't have a 20% failure rate.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf