IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 27 July 2011 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 A524311E80E8; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_COMPNY=2.3]
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 81LifpFrt4xR; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FC611E80F2; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB20B5F997F; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:04:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C125C216C87; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:03:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07C31236670; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:03:31 +1000 (EST)
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F431D11F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4E2DE4EC.1030109@gmail.com> <4E2E2FBA.1030304@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F44833C5@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4E2EDF23.3060804@gmail.com> <4E2F4491.30102@gmail.com> <20110727023833.5C72D1232958@drugs.dv.isc.org> <968F0B1C-D082-4A59-8213-FD58C74AF89D@nominum.com> <20110727151517.CF9371235D70@drugs.dv.isc.org> <D0D20EB6-78C9-415D-9493-3AA08FAACEEF@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|fcf145b5033ff99790b7c34003f47686n6QGZC03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D0D20EB6-78C9-415D-9493-3AA08FAACEEF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:35:07 +0100." <EMEW3|fcf145b5033ff99790b7c34003f47686n6QGZC03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D0D20EB6-78C9-415D-9493-3AA08FAACEEF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:03:31 +1000
Message-Id: <20110727160331.A07C31236670@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:04:21 -0000

In message <EMEW3|fcf145b5033ff99790b7c34003f47686n6QGZC03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D
0D20EB6-78C9-415D-9493-3AA08FAACEEF@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Tim Chown writes:
> 
> On 27 Jul 2011, at 16:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 
> > Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug"
> > or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug".  We already have vendors
> > saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
> > if it becomes historic.
> 
> I would note that RIPE-501 does not mention 6to4:
> 	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-501
> As far as I can see, it only mentions RFC4213.
> 
> I would ask what is the alternative if as Mark suggests the vendors begin rem
> oving 6to4 support?
> a) use 6to4 anyway on an open platform like OpenWRT

Which may or may not still have the code.  OpenWRT could remove
support just the same as another source could.  OpenWRT is also not
widely supported by CPE vendors.  i.e. you are own your own if
something goes wrong in most (not all) cases.

> b) use a tunnel broker - this works much better through NATs and with dynamic
>  IPv4 addresses

For which there is only experimental / ad-hoc code.  Please name
CPE vendors that support tsp?  Please name CPE vendors that support
tunnel re-configuration on re-number.

> c) use your $work VPN if it supports IPv6, which it could/should if your comp
> any values IPv6
> d) get IPv6 from your ISP, or move to one that has it if yours does not

Which is not always a viable option.

> I suspect, but have no proof, that the huge majority of 6to4 users don't use 
> it intentionally, and the content they are trying to reach is also available 
> over IPv4. But for people who want to develop and use new IPv6-specific apps,
> then either a broker or something like OpenWRT ought to meet their needs?
>
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email