In message <430fff20-43ed-45bb-846d-fee8769fc...@bogus.com>, Joel Jaeggli write s: > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > >=20 > > 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.
When you switch the source address preference from 2002::/16 to IPv4 you loose insight into which machines have 2002::/16 addresses still without explict testing. > <snip> > > >> It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new = > relays =3D > >> when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline =3D > >> (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular = > =3D > >> updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm). > >> =3D > >> = > http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/ > >=20 > > 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-break= > ing-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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org