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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/14 2:26 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 13/11/2014 23:17, Doug Barton a écrit :
>> 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?
>
> Requirements or goals whatever one calls them, should be agreed before
> embarking on new work.

But you're begging the question on the new work in the first place. :)

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. At least for HE, that assertion is demonstrably false.

> What do you think the goals would be?
>
> For example, the current tunnel brokers are very good but (1) are not
> trustful, (2) force into later efforts to renumber when going native,
> (3) require filling in forms.  6to4 has the advantage of not requiring 3.

... and yet I would assert that unless we're talking about something 
that is provider managed (such as 6rd) then automatically enabling it 
for the user is a bad idea. It will create more problems than it solves, 
and cause a lot of support calls, which ISPs are not going to like.

I'm also pretty sure that to the extent I understand it, your point 
about renumbering is also invalid.

Doug