Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Sun, 03 July 2011 16:10 UTC
Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AF321F857B; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CYlKaDpFZRVa; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F58521F8578; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p63GAgK9013280; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 17:10:42 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p63GAgK9013280
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1309709442; bh=qc2jzdagHeL6DKNXgINdUb7yqsE=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=FNcz3ULf18cwSNDzW4TP7Im/28zXG23ClE2DCbbcupxnA2Y05h3mGDpOtOgcfapft a9HhvDW7RxN3pUlP1tENgB4p9pHWIXNrRHEp4ysGB2szU0a/GATtwgH6kiYxH+4JUa 27j4DZrEJEdITOAIvHZ/GhEKK8/J915VEODCeWf8=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id n62HAg0366129716Ga ret-id none; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:10:42 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p63G9KUh002645 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 3 Jul 2011 17:09:21 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20110703111047.GB2304@Space.Net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:09:20 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9c8bf9e7fa0e59322f84c8ec6df2b8b9n62HAg03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|04B2CF82-78EC-4A2B-A681-7710E3EFCDBE@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D3F3507EDA@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <CAKD1Yr2Smvm0RY5iV2y06wD=RRz-uW4VbaaairnoAkSR7zLdtg@mail.gmail.com> <DE414D2B-82ED-4C32-AFDF-EDAAB6D743B2@network-heretics.com> <CAKD1Yr0=pJwOzRvTNskS7YDBNa7Fc=8srGzH2qJUKwGHdCAELg@mail.gmail.com> <A1DA82E2-B979-4719-9F78-DEB263B256A1@network-heretics.com> <20110703111047.GB2304@Space.Net> <04B2CF82-78EC-4A2B-A681-7710E3EFCDBE@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n62HAg036612971600; tid=n62HAg0366129716Ga; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p63GAgK9013280
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:10:53 -0000
On 3 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Gert Doering wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 11:11:43PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >> There's clearly a lack of consensus to support it. > > There's two very vocal persons opposing it and a much larger number of > people that support it, but have not the time to write a similarily > large amount of e-mails. For me, this is enough for "rough consensus". > > (And I second everything Lorenzo, Randy and Cameron said - there's > theoretical possibilities, and real world. 6to4 fails the real-world > test. Get over it, instead of attacking people that run real-world > networks for the decisions they need to do to keep the networks running > in a world without enough IPv4 addresses). I'm with Gert, Lorenzo, Randy and others here. It seemed that both the -advisory and -historic drafts had strong support in v6ops, which isn't just any WG, it's the WG that anyone with a vested interest in IPv6 deployment takes part. Thus its view on IPv6 deployment practices should be given due regard. The opposition on the IETF list seemed to be a vocal minority, and of course one person seemed to post a disproportionate number of replies. The problems with 6to4 (20% minimum failure rate, and poor performance when it does connect) are well documented and have led to various 'counter measures' from the IETF, including: a) 6to4 off by default, as per 6to4-advisory b) IPv4 being preferred to 6to4 transport, as per 3484-bis (widely implemented already) c) a fast fallback mechanism from IPv6 to IPv4, as per happy eyeballs (a simplistic version is already in Chrome) Those measures indicate how bad a problem 6to4 creates. If we're going to the trouble of coming up with all these measures, there seems to be a good case for 6to4 to Historic, which would be a steer to implementors to no longer include 6to4 support at all. I do agree however that the most important point is publishing the -advisory text. As a provider of a (not large) enterprise, I know that a fraction of 1% of connections to our site suffer a 10 second+ delay to a dual-stack web site where they suffer no delay to an IPv4-only one. There's no way to know for sure how much of that 'IPv6 brokenness' is 6to4, but measures (a), (b), and (c) should minimise that figure. Having said that, less than 1% of users who connect to our site over IPv6 use 6to4, so we wouldn't be aggrieved to see it disappear in terms of loss of users, as those users could almost certainly still reach us over IPv4. Our own users who want IPv6 connectivity when offsite use tunnel brokers, which provide a much better (and more predictable) service, one that also works from behind a NAT, which in the reality of home, hotel, and other hotspot networks is quite important. As for operators 'fixing' 6to4, well, I'd rather see operators invest that effort in deploying IPv6, rather than making 6to4 work better, for some value of 'better'. Tim
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Robert Raszuk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Robert Raszuk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Frank Bulk
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Melinda Shore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Michel Py
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic SM
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Arturo Servin
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic - A… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic TJ
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Arturo Servin
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Frank Habicht
- [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft-iet… Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Noel Chiappa
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Martin Rex
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Yoav Nir
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft… Turchanyi Geza
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Ronald Bonica
- [v6ops] Dropping 2002::/16 considered very harmful Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Dropping 2002::/16 considered very ha… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Lee, Yiu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic Keith Moore
- Re: [v6ops] Dropping 2002::/16 considered very ha… Turchanyi Geza