IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 19 November 2014 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B2F1A891A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:36:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qUifcTz0Y0to for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C63BD1A1BE7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:36:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sAJ7aAXs030153; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:36:10 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk sAJ7aAXs030153
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1416382571; bh=JFnpduek8tAHs5sMUc3WWFnK0uI=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ntoGO17HWJ0QVJUdauXtyVYm2hV5eZnEzAipKxQCGJkLzVZ+/8+AXbPQYN06yEhOa EwFTnvIXssHglJkVdVDo8A+QSrMp+4ivNf30B/+3UUM/f/yucGSwcHII7ibiwx4ODK 20Cx+y3e5rgM9Yj3SHgL13iNQo15FHVQseFDotsw=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id qAI7aA1330500573hD ret-id none; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:36:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sAJ7Zwu7008798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:35:59 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20141118.223012.41712464.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:35:58 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|70ac22f3eb7a500327bbf34b35183761qAI7aA03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AA6EE468-E5D6-47B5-84EB-1867267F2EDD@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <54663F67.5080603@gmail.com> <546927A0.8030201@inex.ie> <546BAC1F.5020401@umn.edu> <20141118.223012.41712464.sthaug@nethelp.no> <AA6EE468-E5D6-47B5-84EB-1867267F2EDD@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=qAI7aA133050057300; tid=qAI7aA1330500573hD; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: sAJ7aAXs030153
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MLFbflWtg_hpcnsZ3wVR09stJNs
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, nick@inex.ie
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:36:21 -0000

On 18 Nov 2014, at 21:30, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

>>> Despite being a paid-up member of the burn-6to4-with-fire camp, I really
>>> don't think that the IETF should recommend that operators actively block
>>> their end-users from being able to do something, even if we all think it's
>>> a rotten poor idea.  The protocol is dying quite nicely by itself without
>>> operator intervention.
>> 
>> The goal is to not break active and successful users of 6to4.  However, 
>> we don't want to perpetuate zombiefied (half-broken) 6to4 relays either. 
>>  If it is Ok for relay server operators to turn-off relays, at some 
>> point it needs to be Ok for network operators to not carry the route as 
>> well.
> 
> We turned off our 6to4 relay at the end of 2012. We certainly have
> no plans to turn it on again. 
> 
> However - I see no need to deliberately remove the 192.88.99.1 route.
> It will disappear when the last 6to4 relay is turned off.

I wonder what the first publicly announced IPv4 6to4 relay was. Perhaps SWITCH (via Simon Leinen) or FUNET (Pekka Savola)?  I remember the days of SWITCH’s relay being a world 6to4 magnet.

Would be poetic to let them be the last to switch off too, if they’re still running :)

Tim

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status