Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-10.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 12, 2015, at 20:54, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:44 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>    All hosts using 6to4 SHOULD support the IPv6 address selection
>>    policy described in [RFC6724] or be manually configured with an
>>    address selection policy preferring IPv4 over a 6to4 source
>>    address.  Further, 6to4 hosts SHOULD support "Happy Eyeballs"
>>    [RFC6555] or use a browser supporting "Happy Eyeballs".  Any hosts
>>    not meeting these requirements SHOULD NOT use, or continue to use,
>>    the deprecated anycast 6to4 mechanism.
> 
> I disagree that implementations should support happy eyeballs. Happy eyeballs is a hack that came into being to avoid broken IPv6 implementations. (I know, because I was there; and before anyone argues with me - were you?) It adds application complexity and makes debugging harder in order to overcome problems that would not exist if the network were properly configured, and it encourages misconfiguration to persist because it masks the effects of misconfiguration. We should not perpetuate it; we should instead be moving beyond it.
> 
> Just because Happy Eyeballs is a standards track RFC doesn't mean that hosts have to implement it.

Ok, I'm fine without Happy Eyeballs, it is most defiantly a hack, like I said it seemed to jump out of the Introduction as a conclusion.  What about the other half?  If you going to continue to use anycast 6to4 should there be a requirement or recommendation to support RFC6724 or be manually configured with an address selection policy preferring IPv4 over a 6to4 source address?

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: [phone]
===============================================