IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 12 August 2011 12:57 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 BB3F821F84E2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BbHTJBSY-Vrp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:57:00 -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 E8A0121F84D7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:56:59 -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 p7CCvYbH008912 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:57:34 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p7CCvYbH008912
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1313153855; bh=aKSTzm+cEdkYcoEHpzEUJVGxiQY=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=xqKGaADCCfJeRARcc5JvNDM6zBC4mo+fTznpZYXGkApvWmnChSYT4U8SZl4NzlgT0 7DJlb9LyjeDExnFV3PMVHldjPD7e8t9YPTXmZOgil/S+nxbmqtNTjQX5ajM6mdy6c7 3uyngtBGvnGxf6mKx9cIMKPVjLRd0EFUgX844ccs=
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 n7BDvY0366105046Nc ret-id none; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:57:34 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:2022:c8dd:e23a:f927] ([IPv6:2001:630:d0:f105:2022:c8dd:e23a:f927]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7CCvWBO032213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:57:32 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <m1Qrqt5-0001iqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:57:32 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c2ff85658fcdf14bc8723e0025b1280an7BDvY03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F18800CB-2404-47BE-AAF0-BD0A3D5FEDAE@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <m1Qrqt5-0001iqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <F18800CB-2404-47BE-AAF0-BD0A3D5FEDAE@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IPv6 Operations Working Group <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n7BDvY036610504600; tid=n7BDvY0366105046Nc; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p7CCvYbH008912
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:57:00 -0000

On 12 Aug 2011, at 13:30, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In your letter dated Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:55:01 -0700 (PDT) you wrote:
>> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-v6ops-6
>> to4-update. Please take a look at it and comment.
> 
> I guess it can't hurt to say that 6to4 must be off by default.

Which is already said in -advisory.

> Then the draft proceeds to disucss address selection. And that's a bit 
> curious. The text there is already covered by 3484bis. But the draft is
> strangely silent about whether to prefer an IPv4 connection over a 
> connection between two 6to4 addresses. (This is also covered in 3484bis,
> so that text should at least refer to 3484bis)

I noticed that too. This document adds little new, and if anything only adds confusion.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email