Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

My comment is not an objection to this draft. I am generally supportive of
this draft.

I have only one comment, which I suppose *might* rise to the level of a
"complaint" if it were shared by a significant fraction of other
participants, which is simply this: we are retaining RFC 3056 on the
Standards Track, and we are considering an RFC that advises content
providers that supporting 6to4 users with return relays to 2002::/16, maybe
even new ones that aren't currently there, is consistent with Best Current
Practice, but we are not advising anyone else that maybe new deployment of
return relays to 2002::/16 is an idea worth reviewing. Why not?

Some obvious places to locate a 6to4 return relay spring immediately to
mind, e.g. wherever there is a NAT64 gateway, e.g. in dual-stack customer
edge routers with interfaces numbered with public IPv4 addresses.  Anyplace
where an IPv6-only host might be reachable from a host using RFC 3056 (and
not RFC 3068) to get IPv6 packets into the IPv6-only world from some
benighted place where it's the 21st century and still IPv4 is the only
service available to them.

If I were a content provider (oh wait! I work for one now!), then I might
notice the fact this document singles me out for special attention and
leaves unmolested all the other places where broken 6to4 return relay
service might be just as noticeable to legitimate users of RFC 3056 who are
using manually configured forward relay services. I might think to myself:
hey, why do I need a 6to4 return relay in my network when nobody else has
one, and IETF can't even be bothered to advise them that it's even worth
thinking about?

As I said above, this is not actually a complaint. It's just a comment, and
if nobody pipes up with a "me too" observation, then that's fine. I don't
have any significant objection to publishing this revision of the draft now.


On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:40 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the
> IETF.
>
>         Title           : Deprecating Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
> Clouds (6to4)
>         Authors         : Ole Troan
>                           Brian Carpenter
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt
>         Pages           : 7
>         Date            : 2014-11-10
>
> Abstract:
>    Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
>    (6to4)" IPv6 transition mechanism has shown that the mechanism is
>    unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet,
>    especially in its anycast mode.  This document requests that RFC
>    3068, "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", be made obsolete
>    and moved to historic status.  It also recommends that future
>    products should not support 6to4 anycast and that existing
>    deployments should be reviewed.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>



-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering