Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2010-09-01 05:34, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....

Exactly. RFC 3056 describes how to manage 6to4. Unfortunately, RFC 3068
describes how to not manage it. Gunter's comment can apply to RFC 3068
but not to 6to4 as originally defined.

    Brian

> 
> 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: RÃmi DesprÃs; 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 RÃmi DesprÃs
>>> 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 Ãcrit :
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>