In message
<92FB2780-5F10-4173-A982-12E114BFF130(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>, Keith M
oore writes:
I really think that the right answer is to write an applicability statement f
or 6to4 that:
- refers to the existing documents about 6to4 problems
- points out use cases for 6to4 which work well, and others that work less we
ll
- emphasizes that 6to4 is a short-term solution and was always intended to be
such
Deprecating 6to4 and declaring it Historic are premature and overkill, but an
applicability statement seems entirely appropriate to me.
Beyond that, the question of anycast advertisement for 6to4 relay routers (RF
C 3068) is a tough one. I'd like to find a way to be able to keep them, beca
use there's a huge utility in being able to automatically configure such thin
gs. But everybody acknowledges the problems that are caused when relay route
rs are advertised in BGP that don't actually get the traffic there. If ther
e's not a way to weed out the bad ones that is easy for operators to implemen
t, maybe RFC 3068 really should be deprecated.
Keith
Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the
Internet. Applications should cope well with one address of a
multi-homed server being unreachable. Billions of dollars have
been wasted because this has not been seen as a basic requirement
for applications. It really isn't any harder in most cases to do
this right.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf