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

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Are these probes made to an IPv6-only hostname? If so, then of course we'd
> expect OSes to attempt 6to4.
>

Yes and yes. I thought about pruning, and decided to make it complete. Its
certainly not a strong reflection of the real world dynamic, but it shows
how many people are still sitting on vestigial 6to4 technology which can be
woken. Since we know some ISPs had deployment models which included this,
Its not surprising.

Functionally its dead technology. But its zombie dead. not stone-cold.

-G


>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Measurable, indeed.
>>
>> Windows 8? Really?
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>>
>> On 27/01/2015 15:07, George Michaelson wrote:
>> > Ask and ye shall receive
>> >
>> > Here is a days summary of os, browser, os+browser as determined by the
>> > APNIC 1x1 capture, using 2002: as the source IPv6 address, and the
>> Python
>> > httpagentparser module to detect OS and Version info.
>> >
>> > -George
>> >
>> > os,Windows+7,22287
>> > os,Windows+8.1,1743
>> > os,Windows+Vista,939
>> > os,Windows+8,894
>> > os,Windows+XP,431
>> > os,Macintosh+[na],124
>> > os,iOS+[na],44
>> > os,Linux+[na],29
>> > os,Windows+NT 6.4,6
>> > os,Windows Phone+8.1,2
>> > os,ChromeOS+6310.68.0,2
>> >
>> > browser,Chrome,18297
>> > browser,Firefox,3774
>> > browser,Microsoft Internet Explorer,2872
>> > browser,Opera,1439
>> > browser,Safari,110
>> > browser,AndroidBrowser,5
>> > browser,[na],2
>> > browser,SeaMonkey,2
>> >
>> > os+browser,Windows+7.Chrome,15539
>> > os+browser,Windows+7.Firefox,3033
>> > os+browser,Windows+7.Microsoft Internet Explorer,2432
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.1.Chrome,1305
>> > os+browser,Windows+7.Opera,1277
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.Chrome,644
>> > os+browser,Windows+Vista.Chrome,537
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.1.Firefox,311
>> > os+browser,Windows+Vista.Microsoft Internet Explorer,230
>> > os+browser,Windows+XP.Chrome,216
>> > os+browser,Windows+Vista.Firefox,148
>> > os+browser,Windows+XP.Firefox,134
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.Firefox,116
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.Microsoft Internet Explorer,87
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.1.Opera,64
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.1.Microsoft Internet Explorer,63
>> > os+browser,Macintosh+[na].Safari,60
>> > os+browser,Windows+XP.Microsoft Internet Explorer,54
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.Opera,45
>> > os+browser,iOS+[na].Safari,44
>> > os+browser,Macintosh+[na].Chrome,36
>> > os+browser,Windows+XP.Opera,25
>> > os+browser,Windows+Vista.Opera,24
>> > os+browser,Macintosh+[na].Firefox,24
>> > os+browser,Linux+[na].Chrome,16
>> > os+browser,Linux+[na].Firefox,8
>> > os+browser,Windows+7.Safari,6
>> > os+browser,Linux+[na].AndroidBrowser,5
>> > os+browser,Windows+NT 6.4.Microsoft Internet Explorer,4
>> > os+browser,Macintosh+[na].Opera,4
>> > os+browser,Windows+XP.SeaMonkey,2
>> > os+browser,Windows+NT 6.4.Chrome,2
>> > os+browser,Windows+8.[na],2
>> > os+browser,Windows Phone+8.1.Microsoft Internet Explorer,2
>> > os+browser,ChromeOS+6310.68.0.Chrome,2
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm fine with that.
>> >>
>> >> If it is easy enough, I think it would be interesting to get a bit
>> more of
>> >> an insight into who/what is still using 6to4 either in preference to
>> or in
>> >> (HE) parallel to native IPv4 by e.g., collecting User-Agent for 6to4
>> users.
>> >>
>> >>   ------------------------------
>> >>  *From:* Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
>> >> *To:* Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>
>> >> *Cc:* Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; Tore Anderson <
>> >> [e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 January 2015, 23:16
>> >>
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
>> >>
>> >> Yes, those users will definitely be impacted. Which is why the document
>> >> does not suggest dropping the packets or turning off the relays,
>> except by
>> >> saying things like "operators SHOULD [...] consider carefully whether
>> the
>> >> [...] relay can be discontinued as traffic diminishes". That's quite
>> >> reasonable guidance, I think.
>> >>
>> >> Remember: 0.01% is really a very small number. Multiplying it by 1
>> billion
>> >> (like Brian did) makes it seem large, but that's just a trick of the
>> light.
>> >> Look at it this way: if all the relays in the world were turned off
>> >> overnight and all the 6to4 users were unable to reach a given website,
>> that
>> >> website's reliability would still be 99.99% of what it was before.
>> >>
>> >> I support this document in its current form. I only have three comments
>> >> beyond seconding Tore's objection to the draft calling 6to4
>> "substantial":
>> >>
>> >>    1. Is it necessary to formally deprecate RFC 6732? It's an
>> individual
>> >>    submission. (Not that I support RFC 6732 in any way, to be sure.)
>> >>    2. I don't think the sentence "some content providers have been
>> >>    reluctant to make content available over IPv6" is true, or at least
>> any
>> >>    true for any non-trivial value of "some". 6to4 was a problem for
>> content
>> >>    providers a few years ago, but we've moved past it.
>> >>    3. It might be useful to cite that another reason 6to4 is being
>> >>    deprecated is that IPv6 is actually being deployed these days
>> (finally).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <
>> [e-mail]
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>> >> To: Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >> Cc:
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2015, 7:14
>> >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
>> >>
>> >> 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"
>> >>
>> >> Actually, to those end users, the impact might be both quite
>> significant
>> >> and noticeable.
>> >>
>> >> I think one explanation for the use of 6to4 tunnelled IPv6 is that
>> their
>> >> hosts aren't preferring native IPv4 over tunnelled IPv6 (assuming
>> Google
>> >> make their services equally available over both, which I think they
>> do), as
>> >> per RFC3484 address selection rules.
>> >>
>> >> The other explanation for it could be that these users have Happy
>> Eyeballs
>> >> enabled browsers and the browser is choosing to try to use both IPv4
>> and
>> >> IPv6, despite the IPv6 being tunnelled rather than native. From a Happy
>> >> Eyeballs robustness perspective, that would be quite a reasonable
>> thing to
>> >> do I think.
>> >>
>> >> If the end-hosts aren't following RFC3484's default preferences, then
>> >> breaking 6to4 might cause the sorts of timeouts that HE is designed to
>> >> overcome. RFC3484 is quite old now (2003), and as a minor data point I
>> >> first encountered the implementation of them in around 2008/2009 if I
>> >> recall correctly on my Linux system (as I was using 6to4 at the time
>> and
>> >> wanted to use tunnelled IPv6 in preference to native IPv4 -
>> gai.conf(3) is
>> >> the way you change that). So if some hosts are still preferring
>> tunnelled
>> >> 6to4 IPv6 over native IPv4 then perhaps they're also not going to be
>> >> running a HE enabled browser either.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps it might be possible for somebody at Google to produce a list
>> of
>> >> the browser User-Agent strings for people still using 6to4 to see if
>> the
>> >> browsers being used are HE enabled, which might also give some insight
>> into
>> >> RFC3484 support in the underlying OSes.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Mark.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> v6ops mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> v6ops mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> v6ops mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > v6ops mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>