On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4 return-path relay as I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory recommends.
We would not see these users even if we operated reverse path relays as recommended in the draft - from the point of view of the server, in both cases it's just a TCP connection to a 2002::/16 address, regardless of whether the relay is inside the Google network or outside it.
Those users would become visible if we added AAAA records with 6to4 addresses, but that's a bad plan because it would likely lead to the double-digit connection failure rates that Geoff observes. It would also become visible if Google operated an open anycast relay, which we do not plan to do.
The way to find these people is to crawl the BitTorrent networks. What's that old maxim? "You can't test what you don't measure." Do you measure the BitTorrent networks?
No, we don't. The measurements we conduct have the purpose of determining the impact of adding AAAA records to web sites, so we don't measure the population of users that has 6to4 but does not use it to make HTTP connections to dual-stack websites. We do measure the impact of 6to4 on the reliability of websites indirectly, e.g., by observing the difference between OSes that prefer IPv4 over 6to4 and OSes that don't.
Also, is there a way we can put this debate to rest using real data? What if we asked someone like Hurricane Electric how much traffic on their network is native IPv6 vs. 6to4?
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well use IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to a public IPv4 address. What is the advantage of using 6to4 over IPv4 that makes it worth suffering an 80% failure rate?
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf