IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 60BA11A008F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 f4ebBkNHPzcc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6B61A007A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id kx10so5759486pab.12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:41:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ie9Gjbnf4n0HsSJxhVD2K1enY6lq1C1EWoURm5stA30=; b=YcRtSgbY+LxfT4Da2jhx5lFhnBqnPVJQe8D5ggXyoEvXnJ+BHqq4iBgz1B0Zb2q1k7 n448ZDNPfqwImYrAftCj6VHD0OobfNvPeHy1WIKtaMOiYRPHfq91+xgrOY/KXh9TW7JB QFtAa04+37Q1B0liU79pvGdt1iE3XY2OvNLsW+D8xjQPBD0ehn4PVca+fDRCTLADIFoj yAoHlMOtTcZasL0PDzI/OOFQWn666DtcReO33gizkLK/EbEq8/kOHdg481Q2V/Mj+YQ3 NtKseDdIY6uSlCiU3JNk8emWSY+2Dq/5gEiFO/BQ7b19pPiVIDK1Yhx9yDzSq4d1KiXu sxQQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.120.236 with SMTP id lf12mr153740pab.67.1423093272389; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:63b2:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:63b2:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k5sm3113941pdn.45.2015.02.04.15.41.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54D2AE1A.4070603@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 12:41:14 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr28Mto=bvq2eRoKbwKZfkQovH9vr1oumwQhP7ZGp9iS0w@mail.gmail.com> <1328555025.2415573.1423092240089.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1328555025.2415573.1423092240089.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Nf5GWX0mlyOD98ex4C_QoQfTFh0>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
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, 04 Feb 2015 23:41:18 -0000

On 05/02/2015 12:23, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
> While I appreciate that the draft isn't advising to block 6to4, I think it would be useful to gain some more detailed insight into the consequences of blocking 6to4 (i.e., which OSes/browsers might be impacted). Depending on the results, it may also mean that making a strong statement not to block 6to4 traffic in the draft would be beneficial, reinforcing what is in RFC6343.

otoh, if we leave the text as it is now we have a fair chance of getting through
the IETF Last Call and the IESG, and finally getting this done.

    Brian

> Indirectly I think it would also be a measure of the deployment of the RFC3484/RFC6724 rules on various OSes. 
>       From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
>  To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> 
> Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>; Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> 
>  Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 11:18
>  Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
>    
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Would it be possible to conduct the same test with a dual stack site?
> 
> 
> What would we learn from such an exercise? The OS / user-agent breakdown of the 0.01% of hosts that use 6to4 when talking to dual-stack destinations? Even if we knew that, what would we do with it?
> 
>   
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email