Re: [addr-select-dt] Proposed default policy table

[Mohacsi Janos <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Tim Chown wrote:

> Tony,
>
> Now that 6rd is done, what's the view on 6to4?
>
> I know a lot of people would be quite keen to see 6to4 deprecated.

I think 6to4 and teredo should be treated similarly - after ipv4. They 
should be used as a last resort acess to IPv6 resources. I think 
6to4 should be kept since 6to4 is the most implemented IPv6 of the CPE 
equipments.

Best Regards,
 		Janos Mohacsi


>
> Tim
>
> On 8 Jul 2010, at 18:08, Tony Hain wrote:
>
>> For updating 3484-revise section 2.2, the table I have been running at home
>> for some time is:
>>
>> Precedence  Label  Prefix
>> ----------  -----  --------------------------------
>>        90      0  ::1/128
>>        75      1  fc00::/8
>>        70      1  fd00::/8
>>        50      2  2001::/16
>>        50      2  2400::/8
>>        50      2  2600::/8
>>        50      2  2a00::/8
>>        50      2  2c00::/8
>>        40      3  2002::/16
>>        30      3  2001::/32
>>        20      4  ::/0
>>        10      5  ::ffff:0:0/96
>>         5      6  ::/96
>>         4      6  fec0::/16
>>
>> The explicit label 2 set is due to a bug in the vista stack, as that should
>> be a single entry of 2000::/3, (and the fec0 should be /10). The differences
>> from the proposed one in the October text are:
>> - Adding explicit entries for each half of the ULA space to prefer local
>> when possible (rule 2).
>> - Explicitly listing 2000::/3 to avoid default resulting in the ambiguous
>> choice of ula as src.
>> - Keeping teredo and 6to4 as tunnels labeled the same.
>> - Tunnels before default to avoid the ambiguous choices default will result
>> in.
>> - packaging all deprecated prefixes in the same label.
>>
>> The currently proposed table in 2.2 does not solve the problem in 1.1, so it
>> would be good to move that example to an appendix or at least after the 2.2
>> discussion, and replace it with the one of a host selecting between Internet
>> access and a closed network.
>>
>> I understand the desire to move teredo to less than IPv4. While I disagree
>> with the premise, a resulting policy table that does that might look like:
>>
>> Precedence  Label  Prefix
>> ----------  -----  --------------------------------
>>        90      0  ::1/128
>>        75      1  fc00::/8
>>        70      1  fd00::/8
>>        60      2  2000::/3
>>        50      3  ::/0
>>        30      4  2002::/16
>>        20      5  ::ffff:0:0/96
>>         5      4  2001::/32
>>         1      6  ::/96
>>         1      6  fec0::/16
>>
>> I suggest leaving 10, 40, & 80 in the precedence so people can move IPv4 or
>> ULA around without feeling the need to rewrite the other labels (they don't
>> have to, but an obvious hole to park it in reduces confusion). I haven't
>> tried that, and don't have time before I leave today, but I will put that in
>> and see how it works before the IETF meeting. It should be close to what the
>> current text was trying to get to, but with the explicit ula and gua
>> prefixes to avoid default it should work more consistently.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> addr-select-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt
>
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt
>