On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment. Declaring > 6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either.
If the hosts behind it stop using 2002::/16 addresses as a product of a software update which seems rather more likely (also there some evidence for that), it will. that said yes one assumption is that you have to continue to support it. <snip> >> It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new relays = >> when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline = >> (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular = >> updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm). >> = >> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/ > > Which may or may not be a short term dip. correlation is not causation but... http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/11/apple-fixes-broken-ipv6-by-breaking-it-some-more.ars > We are yet to see much in the > way of IPv6 only content. When that appears, which it will, the tunneled > traffic will go up unless ISPs have deployed native IPv6 to all customers. > Are you willing to bet on which will happen first? I'm willing to bet that subpar experience due to auto-tunneling is considered a liability for content providers. > This whole area is in a state of flux. > >>> What would have been much better would have been to encourage CPE >>> vendors to release images which address some of the known issues. >>> Just adding a check box saying "enable 6to4" and for ISP to send >>> out email to say "check your router vendor web site for fixed >>> images". The better fix would be to get them to also add support >>> for draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option-02.txt which greys out >>> the checkbox when 0.0.0.0 is sent as a response to the option. >>> =20 >>> Remember operators are in the position to alleviate lots of the >>> 6to4 issues themselves. >>> =20 >>>>> Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as likely = >> =3D >>>> that your >>>>> AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =3D >>>> connectivity >>>>> with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that =3D >>>> you're >>>>> sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe = >> the >>>>> 6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really =3D= >> >>>> help >>>>> anyway. >>>>> =3D20 >>>>>> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they = >> have >>>>>> customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have =3D >>>> thumb >>>>>> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game. >>>>>> =3D20 >>>>> I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them does = >> =3D >>>> much >>>>> more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you proposed >>>>> above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more =3D >>>> customer >>>>> issues rather than reduce them. >>>>> =3D20 >>>>> Owen >>>>> =3D20 >>>>>> Cameron >>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org] >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM >>>>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 = >> =3D >>>> broken?) >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, =3D >>>> Jeroen Massar wrote: >>>>>>>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing =3D >>>> lists >>>>>>>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are = >> =3D >>>> already doing. >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly =3D >>>> broken. >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. If = >> =3D >>>> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol = >> development =3D >>>> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, =3D= >> >>>> which in many cases is right. Sometimes you just have to play with =3D= >> >>>> something before you worry about the operational details. It also = >> does =3D >>>> not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, = >> and =3D >>>> can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles. >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>>>> =3D20 >>>>> =3D20 >>>>> =3D20 >>>>> =3D20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>> --=20 >>> Mark Andrews, ISC >>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org >>> =20 >> > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org >