Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

Hmmm...it's been well documented that 6to4 causes bad experiences, not
decreases the chance of having them.  Since much of the IPv6-accssible
content is dual-stacked, unless you're using an application that implements
HE, the odds are in your favor to use IPv4 rather than IPv4+6to4.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Philip Homburg
Cc: IPv6 Operations; Keith Moore; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote:
>> In message <4E2F4491.30102@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
>>> Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be
>>> able to upgrade software versions - but hopefully by that time you
>>> will have native IPv6 service anyway.
>> 
>> Which is exactly why HISTORIC is NOT appropriate. 
> 
> With rfc3484-revise and the documented brokenness of 6to4, it doesn't make
> any sense for implementors to offer 6to4 anyhow.

False.  It makes even more sense to offer 6to4 because it significantly
decreases the chance that it will cause a bad experience for users of
services that provide both v4 and v6 addresses, while increasing the chance
letting local hosts/users talk to v6-only services/hosts.

<snip>

Keith

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops