On Jul 3, 2011 7:14 AM, "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
>
> > In your letter dated Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:53:46 +0200 you wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, in the 20% of the time that it's not working, Google has no
> >> idea that the user has a 2002::/16 address. Google only knows, after the
> >> fact, that the user suffered a 20 or 75-second timeout and was not happy. So
> >> it would serve no purpose to avoid serving users that successfully connect
> >> from 2002::/16 addresses; once the AAAA record is handed out, the damage is
> >> done. What Google could do, however, is stop handing out AAAA records to
> >> networks that have significant number of 6to4 users in the future. We're
> >> considering this.
> >
> > I think this clearly illustrates why the IETF should issue a strong statement
> > that no new 6to4 installation should be deplayed and the existing 6to4 users
> > should migrate to other tunneling techniques (if native is not available).
>
> I think this clearly illustrates why IETF should issue a strong statement that
>
> a) operators of 6to4 relays should not advertise those relays via BGP unless they're routing traffic for all of 2002://16 or native v6, respectively
> b) operators should not filter protocol 41traffic
> c) (maybe) operators using LSN should use RFC 1918 addresses behind those NATs unless/until there's another address range that 6to4 host implementations know about
> d) 6to4 should be disabled by default in both hosts and routers
> e) host implementations should prefer native v4 destinations over 6to4 destinations when both are available and the application can use either IPv4 or IPv6
>
You will not get "consensus" on these statements in the IETF or by the various companies that implement gear and networks in the REAL world.
Can we let this thread die now? If the ietf will not kill 6to4, there are several other methods to deal with it in the REAL world (dns whitelisting, null routes, rfp's, blocking aaaa on ipv4 ....). Just like the NAT debacle of years past , the IETF has once again proven its irrelevance.
Thanks for your time and have a great weekend.
Cb
> Saying that no new 6to4 installation should be deployed and that existing 6to4 users should migrate to other tunneling techniques assumes that all installations and users have the same needs, namely, to access content over IPv6 that is also available over IPv4.
>
> > The problem with 6to4 is it was rolled out on a relatively large scale when
> > there was essentially no IPv6 content. As a result, the people who had a
> > broken 6to4 setup would only find out when content providers would start
> > adding AAAA records.
> >
> > In other words, it was ticking time bomb.
>
> The label "broken 6to4 setup" is misleading. Most of the time, the thing that breaks 6to4 is not the user's "setup"; it's an ISP somewhere that is either (a) advertising a bad relay or (b) filtering protocol 41. (If the problem were the users' setups, the providers could just say "not our problem; fix your 6to4 setup")
>
> > What worries me is that people will start using 6to4 for bittorrent. Bittorrent
> > will of course completely hide broken setups and worse, it will also hide
> > broken 6to4 relays.
>
> From my understanding of bittorrent, it will just find other routes.
>
> > And all of this, because a few hobbyists are afraid that declaring 6to4 as
> > historic will require them to search a bit harder in the furture for a
> > router that supports 6to4.
>
> You completely misunderstand both the situation, and the size and diversity of 6to4 users.
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf