On Jul 3, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith > <i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote: > Declaring 6to4 to be historic might encourage native IPv6 deployment, > but I think it will also make trialing IPv6 much harder. > > We don't need to trial the IPv6 protocol. There are hundreds of thousands of > native users accessing production-grade IPv6 services, like Google's, every > day. We know the IPv6 protocol works. ISPs do need to trial IPv6 deployment. > But 6to4 does not help there, because 6to4 is not deployed by ISPs.
6to4 allows applications to use IPv6 even when ISPs don't support it. The idea is to allow application deployment, and use of IPv6, to develop independently of ISP deployment of native IPv6. > They will need to trial native deployments, or 6rd. If *users* want to trial > IPv6 until native IPv6 is available, then they can use configured tunnels. Uh, no. If you're an application developer, shipping code that requires every single user to set up a tunnel is a nonstarter. And as well all know, configured tunnels often route very suboptimally. In many cases 6to4 works better. It's not as if the only applications that matter are those that are layered over HTTP. > The involvement in World IPv6 day by large content providers and the > apparent lack of significant problems would be suggest the opposite is > now the case. Google continuing to provide youtube video content to 6to4 > tunnel users (such as myself), nearly a month later, suggests that any > problems with it are tractable. > > I would assert that the problems with 6to4 are not tractable without > disabling 6to4. Our IPv6 brokenness statistics for before and after World > IPv6 Day are very similar. The only unfixable problem that 6to4 has is its inability to work with NATs, including LSN. Some of those fixes would require code updates to host implementations, but disabling 6to4 would also require code updates. > 6to4 users are easy to spot by the 2002::/16 prefix, so if Google needed to > they could probably quite easily limit their IPv6 content delivery to native > only IPv6 users. > > No, that's not how it works. There is no problem with 6to4 when it works as > well as IPv4. The problem is that 6to4 only works *at all* (never mind works > "as well as IPv4") 80% of the time. That figure is not based on a representative sample of all 6to4 use, so it's hard to know how much confidence to have in it. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
