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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:42 , James Woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Metzler, Dan J <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.

I think that’s pretty unlikely.

6to4 really doesn’t do you much good if you’ve got IPv6 connectivity available, and I can’t imagine that a network would be the last vestigial holdout of transition rather than some arcane application or end device.

Owen