Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:59:24 -0700
Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

That's now, but what about when they chose to implement IPv4 CGN,
likely to be years ago.

>  

Cameron is choosing to blame 6to4 for a problem that any of the
stateless and/or unidirectional Internet protocols could cause on a
IPv4 CGN. His arguments to make 6to4 historic are not based on issues
specific to 6to4. If 6to4 is made historic, does he then start lobbying
for UDP-historic?

> 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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]