Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt - software bugs

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/14 1:19 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> YEs, I agree, and I would like to re-mention the point about software bugs.
>
> There is one particular 6to4 implementation in the wild which has two
> different means to put up a 6to4 tunnel.  One is to just say '6to4' in
> the cli, the other is to be specific and type that IPv4 anycast address.
>
> With the first means - it does not work.  Worse, it gets into a mode
> where packets are output destined to random IPv4 addresses.

Alexandru,

This is merely a special case of the general proposition, "6to4 does not 
work well, and needs to go away." I think your analysis is correct, but 
your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I think the facts dictate.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in learning more about "a solution satisfying 
a number of requirements (currently unsatisfied by eg tunnel brokers)." 
What are those requirements, and why don't the tunnel brokers meet them?

Doug