This line of discussion is not productive... Between them the 4 largest north american wireless carriers need ~18 /8s to assign public ipv4 addresses to their wireless cpe... they don't have that and there's no-where to get it, then there's the rest of the world. On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700 > Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > <snip> >> In the meantime, i null route the 6to4 anycast address because it >> creates half open state in my CGN. Been doing that for at least 5 >> years. > > > So, to be clear, you're not making an observation that 6to4 is broken, > based on measurement or actual use, you're actively breaking it. > >> My next step is filtering AAAA over IPv4 access because 6to4 >> client brokeness won't die on its own, that will be rolled out in a >> few months. Operating a network means making the tweeks that keep the >> wheels rolling, and we don't find many technology purist in my line of >> work. >> > > I think the root cause of your issues is the deployment of IPv4 CGN in > the first place before IANA and the RIRs ran out of IPv4 addresses by > the sounds of it. I think then means that any protocol that your > customers try to use that would create unwanted state in your IPv4 CGN > should be, by your definition, declared "historic", not just 6to4. When > a customer signs up to your service, are they informed as to which > protocols and applications they are allowed to use? My opinion is that > if there are restrictions on what protocols and applications customers > can operate then their service is not a real Internet service. The > majority of, if not all, residential broadband service providers in my > market hold the same belief - it seems to be the "pure" mobile > carriers that commonly don't. > >> Other access providers like 6to4 so much that they want to NAT it. >> This is the reason why historic is the proper term. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-02 >> >> I look forward to that discussion on ietf@ >> >> Cameron >> >> >>> Keith >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf