Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 03 July 2011 19:31 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 5F4E521F8648; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 L9knbBipP9hR; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A4C21F8647; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3BF25E06; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 15:31:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:31:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=3YxmxhrQRiZRs8lT0xDfrR0bVOA=; b=EocOpyoQomoXwqiLeOdUX/h+RATmx5CBaxbdSeXrXNiWbPt539WeEgsfISNhelCHDkJxjkpliBVkCIpgEfaqtJV+EuUvbHI+iMz+yVVPK8qDUpYKE5XSqsEY+tRTuJ6KND7xXtqfZUTI4Oo/4w1calpAGNAB58aaE5Dc8TotZ/U=
X-Sasl-enc: r/eqzW5NahkugxwfVFLXDqprNdVO0Jca1NUlhywd3t4K 1309721463
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A3E36403FC3; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 15:31:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-2-701763140"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <DFD19CC6-219F-4449-B0F4-8125193B6FF6@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:30:44 -0400
Message-Id: <D30FDDB9-A19A-46C3-9E06-68070300F32A@network-heretics.com>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F3507EDA@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <CAKD1Yr2Smvm0RY5iV2y06wD=RRz-uW4VbaaairnoAkSR7zLdtg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimpRDNQKc1XTafSkKOo5dCX3Gc8Yw@mail.gmail.com> <20110703112048.4a3c7111@opy.nosense.org> <4E0FD788.3000305@dougbarton.us> <20110703131913.28142ec0@opy.nosense.org> <CAKD1Yr0dU8xGPc5tY8qK7w7Vc57zzj2BBipCb3b3VsXLov-JUw@mail.gmail.com> <m1QdKfr-0001jNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E3CF6B2C-B177-4A6A-898C-4EA8C8CA65D5@network-heretics.com> <CAD6AjGSUEmdKk3trTdRXMyrnp8FFyvHUWBSgeBrHT_2jPjXUBA@mail.gmail.com> <100DA5A2-0276-45B8-A8CD-AB7B0D947AC4@network-heretics.com> <CB106539-9C0F-489C-BBC0-E4ADAF3B8F45@gmail.com> <746A967B-16AF-4428-8424-298AF8001F87@network-heretics.com> <DFD19CC6-219F-4449-B0F4-8125193B6FF6@gmail.com>
To: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:31:05 -0000
On Jul 3, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: >>> >>> And b. >>> >>> And probably it is too much effort for something that will go away (probably sooner that we expect) with the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses for each ISP's customer (6to4 does not work with NATs, and they are here). >> >> It's clearly inappropriate for operators to be filtering protocol 41. Not only does this break 6to4, it also breaks other tunneling mechanisms. More generally, it's inappropriate for operators to be favoring one kind of traffic over another. > > Many corporate networks filter them because security concerns (I am not saying that is right or wrong, it just happens and it breaks 6to4). They won't change their mind because 6to4. Fair enough. (It bothers me when ISPs filter them, but I consider it within the rights of an enterprise network to do that. What an enterprise does with its own traffic should be its own business, and they can benefit and/or suffer from the consequences of their choices. Though I do think that there are probably better ways to handle the (legitimate) security concerns than to merely filter protocol 41. e.g. ICMP unreachable.) And of course protocol 41 becomes problematic for those behind a NAT of any kind, including LSN. (I do see LSN as "best effort" delivery; it's just that the state of the the network has made "best" pretty sad these days.) So if we were able to omit or finesse considerations (b) and (c) could we get consensus around the remaining items in that list? >> The ISPs I've talked to tell me that they see no reason why static, public IPv4 addresses cannot continue to be given to those that request them, indefinitely, as long as they're paying for business service. > > Call one not in the USA. China or India perhaps. I'll take your word for it. 6to4 is only going to work in corner cases, and those corners are somewhat defined by geography. Honestly I'd be happy to declare 6to4 Historic if we had a suitable replacement - one that could be automatically configured by hosts, used by applications, and worked better than 6to4 in most cases. I don't think it exists yet. (That oft-touted 80% reliability figure needs to be compared with similar figures for other methods, along with the realization that manual configuration, lack of platform support, congestion at heavily-used tunnel endpoints, are all significant sources of failure. Note that you can't measure this by looking only at traffic in the network. And for those who insist that all v6 traffic should be native, note that from the perspective of an application developer, there is close to a 0% reliability for this at present. 80% is a huge improvement over that, though still not good enough.) Keith
- draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Melinda Shore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Michel Py
- RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic SM
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic TJ
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re:draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Roger Jørgensen
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Andrews
- 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: [v6ops] draft-iet… Keith Moore
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Robert Raszuk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Robert Raszuk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Erik Kline
- RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Frank Bulk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Arturo Servin
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Arturo Servin
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory dependency on draf… C. M. Heard
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory dependency on … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Scott Kitterman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Yoav Nir
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Roger Jørgensen
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ole Troan
- Re: 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: [v6ops] draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft… Turchanyi Geza
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft… Mohacsi Janos
- Dropping 2002::/16 considered very harmful Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Dropping 2002::/16 considered very harmful Cameron Byrne