On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:59:24 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> 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.li...@gmail.com> 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 > >> v6...@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
