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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Mark
 ZZZ Smith writes:
>
> Hi George,
> Thanks very much for the new data.
> (Off topic for the draft) I do find the entries in the list of
> OS/Browsers a bit surprising - it either implies that they didn't have
> native IPv4 connectivity and only had 6to4, or weren't following
> RFC3484/6724 rules, which is surprising given how modern they all look.

If you have a IPv4 and a IPv6 address and the v4 connection attempt
fails then the v6 address will be tried and if the only viable
source address is 6to4 then that will be used.

> Some searches have shown up some articles from Microsoft saying that
> they've been following RFC3484 rules since at least Windows Vista, and
> there are some registry hacks that can disable that, so perhaps that
> might explain the Windows entries Vista and later.
> I found an article that said that since Mac OS X 10.6.5, native IPv4 is
> preferred over 6to4 IPv6, perhaps the Macintosh's in your list are
> pre-10.6.5.
> Thanks,Mark.
>       From: George Michaelson <[e-mail]>
>  To: Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; Mark ZZZ Smith
> <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; Tore
> Anderson <[e-mail]>
>  Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2015, 14:48
>  Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
>
> I think I agree with Lorenzo. 
>
>
>
> I did run the numbers over 40 days of data, considering *ONLY* the
> fetches made to a dualstack URL.
> stf         2766
> v4 23002469
> v6     474779
> 6 to 4 (stf) in this measure is (as Lorenzo says) of the order 0.01% of
> the total load seen on a dual-stack URL, and its only 0.57% of total
> IPv6. In this measure, IPv6 is around 2% of total request traffic, which
> is lower than even our pessimistic world-rate, but I did no complex
> analysis of this by economy or anything, its an un-weighted simple sum.
> The point being, that over a 40 day period 2,700 odd people insisted on
> using 6to4, given a dual-stack URL out of 23,000,000 connections.  I
> believe would be going too far to consider this right now as a damage
> risk. 
> A Top-10 OS/Browser list:
> Windows 7.Chrome          1574
> Windows 7.Firefox              328
> Macintosh [na].Safari          250
> Windows 8.1.Chrome         162
> Windows 7.Microsoft IE        95
> Windows 8.Chrome              81
> Windows Vista.Chrome         74
> Windows 7.Opera                 52
> Windows XP.Chrome           34
> Windows 8.1.Firefox             23
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 05/02/2015 12:23, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
> > 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.
>
> otoh, if we leave the text as it is now we have a fair chance of getting
> through
> the IETF Last Call and the IESG, and finally getting this done.
>
>
> +1. We can always explore that question in a separate document once this
> one is published. If it turns out that blocking provides no benefit
> and/or is harmful, then nothing changes. If it turns out that it can be
> done safely, then we can issue an operational guidance document advising
> it. 

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]