On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > Keith is correct, and the further issue is that the *-only-* reason the > 'poorly managed' relays are in the path is that the content providers are > refusing to deploy the matching 6to4 router that would take a direct > connection from the customer. > > 6to4 direct between the content and consumer is still an 'unmanaged' tunnel > which takes exactly the same path as IPv4 would, so the 'badness' is not due > to managed vs. not. And the breakage still exists even if you do that. > In the grand scheme of things, the last thing the > content providers want is for the network to wrest control over streams into > a walled-garden model. Unfortunately they are not thinking this through, > they are just whining because the deployment of a second prefix on their > content servers does not conform to their IPv4-think dream world. Really? More ip addresses on load balancers has never been a problem. > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >> Keith Moore >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:56 AM >> To: Ole Troan >> Cc: Michel Py; IETF-Discussion >> Subject: Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support >> >> On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> >>> making 6to4 historic does not affect 6rd. I think the draft says that >> much too. >>> I don't think we are saying that native necessarily is better than >> tunnels. >>> we are saying unmanaged tunnels crossing the Internet is bad. >> >> I think this misses the point. Most internet traffic is "unmanged". >> The fact that in the case of 6to4 the traffic is protocol 41 doesn't >> affect this. >> >> The real problem here is that there are relay routers that advertise >> connectivity to one or both anycast addresses via BGP, that aren't >> properly managed. >> >> A related problem, I suppose, is that to a user, 6to4 looks like "the >> network". And if there's a problem, the user will blame "the network" >> and ask "the network" support people to fix it. And quite often the >> problem is not in the access network but in another network. But (and >> please forgive my ignorance of operational issues) I don't see how >> that's inherently different from any case where there's a BGP >> advertisement to somewhere that blackholes traffic. Except maybe that >> there are a growing number of 6to4 users who can complain, and that all >> 6to4-related problems tend to get lumped together in the minds of >> support people even if they're caused by different networks and >> routers. >> >> Keith >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf