IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Wed, 04 February 2015 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E661A0024 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:26:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.202
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HK_RANDOM_REPLYTO=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSsTFY43r0o4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm42-vm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm42-vm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.121.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFB381A0011 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:26:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s2048; t=1423092413; bh=SLWmShtgZVMuINz85We7cl1FumQdeBHbnwlECRxJ3O8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=FXh6YxJv5QPIhcAHu0N1/ZFuw3BD07IRKve8TptQilku2MGzmxJHn2WHKtOgjdVK7Acf1i+cIT1P04NdBqZroxZQ7RmE5MazvQ5DTAwlKqsasuT2MGfe6gxvRvx4re47wKY2ywYQc/pVYQ6ZHedARPdwU2W1UNiRVyk7I1YEXPZQ9wifqFXFQnQuzHwso3/NM0uHRFqM7/smATFYQ9cYOpsj4MuPy5tOfaHT+u/ORPD7ni2s5tO8FfgvoVa0HFbdEotVR9y9+YZxbSORRxkLY4hRSdaIN2+3THq6nLE7XKcQ0M2iOaT+eZCbe0Lm5UIe9bVd3gyF7WlDur/SCNRnHA==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm42.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 23:26:53 -0000
Received: from [98.138.100.112] by nm42.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 23:24:01 -0000
Received: from [98.139.215.142] by tm103.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 23:24:01 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.246] by tm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 23:24:01 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1055.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 23:24:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 187703.94335.bm@omp1055.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: t0R8HwAVM1l.3cT9.9ZsW0AZlxggJrCduiuX5gKdtxhxOxkCGxO8VAt7RktJdoV tlOkDxOhbJEIF.gtoc011AiU1AW6xl6yeOKHjVKJ4IFKzpiZSUM_tvESLD7l5Q4Op7O4xdaG7aAJ RK0F8O0W9Zhe0wP.A6bn3WtUsCTW.eLRcEI92qelslP1bPilxoNb2C75vc3rpAjuj9V2Mo6Ogim9 eRPwferpdMVKmM.qvsfterMFZHF9TF6K7H1LHjLbzy15Uwf6VqgR_UYkXZhQPvRq2Gz4cWHioHs_ bs3yahLfy403D8fHjOR.40cNIXPKk34pozJYZZLv3vQtC.YlVb4I5S0fdznLRDNT6YB_jcr2YauU _84.u4qsX4WnboQFBYuJRKloDf87rqDfe.49JAnPMRY_PfUytin7cFS1eVM1LHFkn6MdrzehguFD iVz1nqHItfn5._hBanVJsPM7gdJcBaYu0H_6Ma5SSlm.ztGRyJrIkGUtaKBfiYya1vLwGyY1r6Bc aPjV8VvsaJ88LJklpzoIuPKVBwy1H717Z1Zma2GmyOAkJjDPShEN6GdzL
Received: by 76.13.27.55; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:24:00 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:23:59 +0000
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Message-ID: <1328555025.2415573.1423092240089.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr28Mto=bvq2eRoKbwKZfkQovH9vr1oumwQhP7ZGp9iS0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr28Mto=bvq2eRoKbwKZfkQovH9vr1oumwQhP7ZGp9iS0w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2415572_1962542060.1423092240084"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1nl7hdGUNb87agwA9-oy2DLRrYs>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:26:55 -0000

While I appreciate that the draft isn't advising to block 6to4, I think it would be useful to gain some more detailed insight into the consequences of blocking 6to4 (i.e., which OSes/browsers might be impacted). Depending on the results, it may also mean that making a strong statement not to block 6to4 traffic in the draft would be beneficial, reinforcing what is in RFC6343.
Indirectly I think it would also be a measure of the deployment of the RFC3484/RFC6724 rules on various OSes. 
      From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
 To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> 
Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>; Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> 
 Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 11:18
 Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
   


On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Would it be possible to conduct the same test with a dual stack site?


What would we learn from such an exercise? The OS / user-agent breakdown of the 0.01% of hosts that use 6to4 when talking to dual-stack destinations? Even if we knew that, what would we do with it?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email