>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Tony> There is no real problem with 6to4, despite the BS being
Tony> propagated about failure rates. The fundamental problem is
Tony> that those complaining have their heads firmly stuck in
Tony> IPv4-think, and are refusing to add a second 6to4 prefix to
Tony> their service. If they would simply install their own 6to4
Tony> router and be the tunnel endpoint, there would be no 3rd party
Tony> in the path for either direction. The technology is simply
Tony> creating an opportunity. Those complaining about it are
Tony> refusing to take advantage of it because that would be a
Tony> different operational practice than they do for IPv4.
+1
I have native IPv6 at home.
I have multiple other sites that I work with that can only get tunnels.
6to4 (on BSD. Linux has a design bug) lets me do this to shortcut things:
route add -net -inet6 2001:4830:116e:: -prefixlen 48 2002:84d5:ee07::1
IPv4 is my NBMA LAN :-)
Tony> The herd mentality of kill-what-we-don't-like is not helping
Tony> with deployment. In fact the ability to document which ISPs
Tony> have customers that are trying to use IPv6 despite the edge
Tony> lethargy is a very useful thing to drive deployment through
Tony> blame-&-shame. Put the 6to4-to-historic effort on the shelf
Tony> for at least 5 years. Then it will be time to talk.
The funny part is that removing 6to4 won't reduce any code, as the 6rd
code is often identical...
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf