And b.
And probably it is too much effort for something that will go away (probably sooner that we expect) with the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses for each ISP's customer (6to4 does not work with NATs, and they are here).
-as
On 3 Jul 2011, at 11:40, Keith Moore wrote: > 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.
why not? all of those recommendations are clearly appropriate and desirable, with the possible exception of (c) because ISP use of RFC 1918 addresses is likely to conflict with customer user of the same address ranges.
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf