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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 21/01/2015 02:16, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * [e-mail]
> 
>> This is to initiate a one week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic.  
> 
> I have read this document, and I think it is ready to move forward.
> 
> Its operational need for this document is less pressing now than when
> the -00 version was published back in 2011. Nevertheless, I find it
> valuable and correct to put the final nail in 6to4's coffin at this
> point in time. While the operational community for the most part has
> already realised that 6to4 has no future, there might be some who have
> not been paying attention and formal deprecation of the protocol may
> help prevent them from making the mistake of attempting to base
> production systems on it.
> 
> I have one minor comment though: In section 1, it says «a substantial
> amount of 6to4 traffic is still observed by IPv6 content providers».
> While I do see 6to4 traffic, it is quite far from being of "substantial"
> levels. I would therefore recommend replacing "substantial" with
> something milder like "noticeable", "measurable", or something along
> those lines.
> 
> For what it's worth, today the Google public IPv6 graph shows just a
> measly 0.01% of their total IPv6 traffic being Teredo/6to4, so it's not
> just me.

Tore,

However, that fraction of Google traffic multipled by Google users
represents something like 100000 users. I don't think we can dismiss
that number of people too easily. It's a matter of taste whether
that's "substantial" or "noticeable".

    Brian