IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Sun, 03 July 2011 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7749721F866E; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C9bmU8A6hEY4; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CA321F85BB; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 6B3BD18C13C; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:12:09 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Message-Id: <20110703141209.6B3BD18C13C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:12:09 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:12:12 -0000

    > From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>

    > Bad 6to4 (which almost all of it is)

draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory says:

  The experiment conducted by Aben recorded a failure rate of between 9%
  and 20% of all 6to4 connection attempts. The experiment conducted by
  Huston has recorded a failure rate of between 9% and 19% of all 6to4
  clients.

20% != "almost all of it".

    > I realize that there are a lot of people that dismiss both the
    > evidence that's been put forward

This is again a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation. Please
name _one_ person who thinks that automatically enabled 6to4 is not
causing any problems.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email