On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com>wrote:
> So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6 > deployment for server operators and content providers. > > non sequitur. Existing server operators and content providers can easily > provide 6to4 addresses for their servers and content, which will be used in > preference to native v6 addresses. > No. According to Geoff's data, one of the main reasons 6to4 fails is a firewall that blocks IPv4 protocol 41 traffic. Even if content providers published 6to4 addresses, those connections would still fail. > Application developers should develop using manually configured tunnels, > not 6to4. At least they don't have a 20% failure rate. > > How do you know? How do you even measure the failure rate of manually > configured tunnels in the aggregate? > In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs. I suspect that the answer will be that much fewer users have configured tunnels than 6to4, and that the failure rate is much lower. > I don't think you can monitor that kind of traffic the way you can 6to4, > because the traffic patterns are much more constrained. It's been awhile > since I used manually configured tunnels (from a well-known tunnel broker). > But the one time I did try them, 6to4 worked better overall - lower latency > and lower failure rate. > Please try again. You will be pleasantly surprised.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
