Re: 6to4 to Historic (ipv6-ops@cluenet Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records)

FWIW, as an implementor I incorporated changes into CUPS to prevent the use of 6to4 back in October of 2005 (9 years ago), mainly because of the issues identified in:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3964
    ftp://ftp.itojun.org/pub/paper/draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-01.txt

> On Oct 3, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Le 03/10/2014 15:06, Jeroen Massar a écrit :
>> On 2014-10-03 07:05, Erik Kline wrote:
>>> One concern I remember from one of the most vocal opponents at that time
>>> was that deprecation might cause code to get deleted from codebases
>> 
>> Why would that be bad?
>> 
>> Code that is not used and could possibly provide a path to some kind of
>> exploit/abuse/unknown use is good to disappear.
> 
> It would be good to document cases where that happened.
> 
> Here something along these lines happened recently with the -brand- CLI not specifying the IPv4 dst address, followed by "invalid memory action", and then by all outgoing IPv6 packets going encapsulated to random IPv4 addresses.  Not only  it could have been considered legitimately as an attack by the receivers, but had a geo-political dimension on it when localized on certain regions of a map.
> 
> On another hand, for whatever is worth, at my local setting IPv6 as '6to4' works just fine in 2014 and maybe in 2015 there would be reason to move to native, and even more so if 6to4 service is not maintained.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> One of the many things that the LibreSSL folks are doing to OpenSSL.
>> 
>>> or at the very least bitrot (with various patches rejected sited IETF
>>> deprecation).
>> 
>> The only acceptable patch is in those cases a patch that
>> removes/deprecates the support.
>> 
>>> I believe this person either had or knew of one or more
>>> private uses of 6to4 that would therefore likely suffer.
>> 
>> "Private" means "local", thus do not require anything on the rest of the
>> Internet. Also it means that they can set up 6in4 based tunnels or use
>> ISATAP.
>> 
>> Unless that "person" provides a lot more details and reasoning, does it
>> matter?
>> 
>> Greets,
>>  Jeroen
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair