Re: Dropping 2002::/16 considered very harmful

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

 



I, for one, am not interested talking about 6to4 anymore.

On Jul 8, 2011 4:36 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to
>> drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a
>> correct error messages to.
>
> This is an awesomely bad idea. As explained in the approved advisory
> document, it makes things worse for everybody (the user, the content
> provider, and the unfortunate person answering calls from either of
> them at the help desk).
>
> On the contrary - it's in everyone's interests to have the return
> path working. Once a user manages to get a packet to the content
> provider, everybody suffers if the return path fails.
>
> (However, if you are announcing a route to 2002::/16, it must lead
> to a relay that will relay all 6to4 packets, with no form of ACL).
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
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]