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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf