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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 13/11/2014 23:17, Doug Barton a écrit :
> On 11/13/14 1:19 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> YEs, I agree, and I would like to re-mention the point about software
>> bugs.
>>
>> There is one particular 6to4 implementation in the wild which has two
>> different means to put up a 6to4 tunnel.  One is to just say '6to4' in
>> the cli, the other is to be specific and type that IPv4 anycast address.
>>
>> With the first means - it does not work.  Worse, it gets into a mode
>> where packets are output destined to random IPv4 addresses.
>
> Alexandru,
>
> This is merely a special case of the general proposition, "6to4 does not
> work well, and needs to go away." I think your analysis is correct, but
> your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I think the facts dictate.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm interested in learning more about "a solution satisfying
> a number of requirements (currently unsatisfied by eg tunnel brokers)."
> What are those requirements, and why don't the tunnel brokers meet them?

Requirements or goals whatever one calls them, should be agreed before 
embarking on new work.

What do you think the goals would be?

For example, the current tunnel brokers are very good but (1) are not 
trustful, (2) force into later efforts to renumber when going native, 
(3) require filling in forms.  6to4 has the advantage of not requiring 3.

Alex

>
> Doug
>
>
>