[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Non-Managed tunnl services [WAS: RE: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC]
The thing is... you can't control the return path... so its non-managed and one relies upon the good-will of other people to have a good behaving 6to4 relay.
It may work now, and I do know people being super happy with 6to4, but if there would be 10000 people using same relay, the service may be degraded if it is just a sponsored service with revenue... It is a result of business reality.
G/
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi@niif.hu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:35 PM
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: Rémi Després; Randy Bush; Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops
Subject: RE: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> Can be mananaged... but... if you use 6to4, then do you know the person
> running the relays? Do you even know who is running the relays? And why
> should the people running the relays care about you if you are not there
> direct customer?
If a provider is encouraging to use 6to4, it will provide 6to4 relay for
their customers: announcing anycast 6to4 relay address to them (probably
only for them). Provider is monitoring operational status of 6to4 relay,
traffic volume etc. plus help debugging MTU problems... Yes I know, this
is can be done only for outgoing direction.... But if every 6to4 relay
provider would be doing the same....
For example I used to know who is running the 6to4 relay used by me...(me
and network operation team). For 1.5 years I don't care much about 6to4
relay anymore since I am using native IPv6 both at home and at work.
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
>
> G/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi@niif.hu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:53 PM
> To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Cc: Rémi Després; Randy Bush; Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops
> Subject: RE: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>
>> Next to that... teredo and 6to4 are non-managed services, while 6rd is a managed service... big difference for the user experience.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels-01
>
> What do you mean about managed service? I think 6to4 and teredo can be
> managed....
>
> Best Regards,
> Janos Mohacsi
>
>>
>> G/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:07 PM
>> To: Randy Bush
>> Cc: Cameron Byrne; IPv6 v6ops
>> Subject: Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>>
>>
>> Le 19 ao?t 2010 ? 08:09, Randy Bush a écrit :
>>
>>> from 10,000m, what is 6rd but a teredo/6to4 that colludes with the
>>> provider who won't do real v6? it's a cute hack, but a hack.
>>
>> Descending to 100m, one can see that, unlike Teredo and 6to4, 6rd provides native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, unlike Teredo and 6to4:
>> - Hosts behind a 6rd CPE are on a dual-stack LAN, and can't determine whether the ISP network is dual stack throughout or 6rd.
>> - From 6rd sites, connectivity with other IPv6 native addresses is guaranteed, which is the case with neither Teredo nor 6to4.
>>
>> You told me once that, for you, "hack" had no negative connotation.
>> Then, "cute hack" can nicely be taken positively, thanks ;-).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> RD
>>
>> PS: Note that I have absolutely no financial interest in any of its actual applications, just being proud of having originated a useful mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>