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

["Metzler, Dan J" <[e-mail]>]

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

I would hope so.  If the whole premise of 6to4 being a dead technology were based on the idea that we are only talking about dual stack hosts, then this whole exercise is silly.
Probes to IPv6-only hostnames are exactly what matters, and I would argue that this thing is really a moving target until all ISPs are providing IPv6 connectivity.

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 have no objection to the document as it advocates deprecating, not breaking 6to4-PMT, (the anycast stuff).  I would just point out that we are not waiting for content providers to do something.  We are waiting for ISPs to provide native IPv6, so that people who don’t read RFCs or care about them will get their IPv6 connectivity through methods other than Teredo and 6to4.  I don’t know how you measure the number of ISPs that are IPv4 only still, but to me that’s the important measurement, and the 6to4-PMT users are a subset of their customers who happen to have 6to4 capable endpoints and gateways.

Regards,
  Dan


From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:37 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Tore Anderson; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC

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

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *To:* Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Cc:* Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tore Anderson <
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> To: Tore Anderson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops