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

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Metzler, Dan J <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> Unless an alternative auto-configured solution is provided out-of-the-box
> by vendors, (not likely if WGs are claiming it isn’t needed), then 6to4 is
> likely to hang around; even if it isn’t the optimal solution.  I heard
> claims that it would be a good 5-6 years before vendors would be able to
> push an alternative solution out the door, and by that time IPv6 will have
> reached critical mass.  Well if that is the future we’re putting forward
> and we aren’t pursuing an alternative solution, then we are waiting for
> IPv6 to reach critical mass before 6to4 really becomes “dead”; or at least
> waiting for all ISPs to provide some kind of IPv6 connectivity.  (Or, we’re
> waiting for the relay operators to cut off their access.)  Until then it is
> likely that 6to4 will hang around in at various levels because there will
> always be a group of internet users that are using the existing 6to4 relays
> to be able to reach IPv6 only hosts, and over time we can expect the number
> of v6 only hosts to go up; not down.
>

I hate to be That Guy, but I can't keep myself from wondering aloud if we
might see measurable *intentional* usage of 6to4 [RFC 3056] in the wild for
as long as we still see IPv4 in the wild.  When I'm feeling especially
depressed about this topic, I wonder if we might see 6to4 as the *last*
major application of IPv4 before we turn off its lights in the default free
zone.

p.s. My thanks to George Michaelson for capturing that information.  Very
illuminating.


-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering