--On Friday, June 10, 2011 15:10 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm a content provider. I'm am prepared to turn on more ipv6 > services that are visible to consumers. 6to4 is a visible and > measurable source of collateral damage. If consenting adults > want to use it that's fine, I would greatly appreciate it if > the facility were: > > * off by default > > * considered harmful when not deliberately used. ok > The gradually declining determinism that we fully expect to > experience from ipv4 access networks and mobile broadband in > particular we expect to be hard enough to manage without those > users riding in over 6to4. > > I think the two documents at present encourage: > > * vendors an implementors to consider not using or a least > disabling by default 6to4 auto-tunneling in existing and > future implementations. > > * the deployment of additional 6to4 anycast relays which if > done would help address issue that existing users of 6to4 who > will be with us for a while as well as those who would prefer > to use it would benefit from. Actually not. That is certainly what the "advice" document encourages. But "Historic" is a sufficiently blunt instrument that moving the base 6to4 specs to Historic could be interpreted by either vendors or operators as "if you had a transition strategy based on using 6to4, or are using it today, 6to4 is sufficiently bad news that it is reasonable to just disable it, and IPv6 along with it, instead until some unspecified magical event occurs". I know that isn't what you intend or how you would read it, but it is a reading of "Historic" that is perfectly consistent with things we have used Historic for in the past. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf