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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/14 2:48 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> I am begging to give a replacement before deprecating.  If you dont
> deprecate and if vendor fixes bugs then one is fine (except reverse DNS,
> and _any_cast trust matters).

If you are actually using 6to4 for production purposes I guarantee that 
you will like tunnels better. So your replacement is ready-made for you.

>> You're asserting that tunnels cannot do things that you think we should
>> be able to do, making sure that a) you're correct, and b) those things
>> are worth the cost should be a precursor to any discussion on new work.
>>
>> For example, in response to Jeroen you asserted that tunnels don't allow
>> reverse DNS.
>
> The IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel does not (I didnt mean IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnel not
> to allow reverse dns - I think it does).
>
>
>> At least for HE, that assertion is demonstrably false.
>
> Yes.

I'm not sure you are understanding me here. I have an HE 6in4 tunnel, I 
can easily get reverse DNS for it if I want to. (I don't, but I can.)

> Ah no, please, dont plan on renumbering.  I dont even have software to
> renumber all these devices and all these radvd.conf files...
>
> I can give up my 6to4 address space, but just once.  I dont want to do
> it again in 2 years or so. (I already did it once in the past, its
> painful).
>
> (now I am a particular case and people could discuss theirs, if any).

I'm sorry to say, renumbering is a fact of life. I'm not trying to be 
insensitive to your pain here, but it sounds like you're asking us to 
delay a major improvement to the IPv6 spec for your organization's 
convenience.

Doug