Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies

Lee Howard <> Mon, 22 January 2018 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648D0129C59 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:54:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7hDfWbl3bDW for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2731129BBF for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0MJs8iH030639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:54:08 -0500
Received: (qmail 28045 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jan 2018 19:54:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 22 Jan 2018 19:54:07 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:54:03 -0500
From: Lee Howard <>
To: Ole Troan <>
CC: Fred Baker <>, Sander Steffann <>, " WG" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] discussion of transition technologies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:54:12 -0000

On 1/22/18, 2:20 PM, "Ole Troan" <> wrote:

>>>> I think I might also argue that the market has more or less followed
>>>> that advice. Your spreadsheet seems to suggest that.
>>> The interesting thing is that 6rd, which is a way of appearing to have
>>> IPv6 network without actually having one, is not what one might call
>>> "prevalent". It has in fact been used for *transition*, in places like
>>> Free - which used to connect IPv6 customers using 6rd and (I
>>> has recently announced native IPv6 deployment. The places I know that
>>> have used it used it for a while and then have gone native.
>>> Would you agree with that?
>> I would; that is my perception. MHO is that 6rd has had its day, and
>> I don’t think it needs to be deprecated, I haven’t heard any scenarios
>> the past several years where it solves an actual problem.
>Apart from giving millions of users IPv6 access?

Why would anyone want to do that?

That’s a bit of a snarky question, but it’s a real one. Is there any
real-world problem for which 6rd is the best answer?
“I can’t update my network to support IPv6, but there are IPv6-only hosts
that my users need to be able to reach” is the scenario 6rd addresses. Is
that an actual case? The case “My ISP hasn’t updated to support IPv6, but
there are IPv6-only hosts I need to reach” is solved with a tunnel broker.

I don’t deny that it is deployed at scale. I’m asking whether there are
any new deployments, recent or contemplated, and what path on a decision
tree would lead one to decide “6rd.”