In message
<19FB0BB1-9048-476A-A901-67F962A116B1(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>, Keith M
oore writes:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
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.
Not that I disagree with the idea that applications should be able to
fail over from one address to another, but ... why do you assume that
the server is multihomed?
Yes, that is a assumption which isn't always true but mostly is now. It's
definitely true for the content providers complaining that 6to4 is stopping
them deploying IPv6.
The problem with the broken 6to4 relay on an anycast address is that the
application (or user, or site) doesn't get to choose a different relay.
The site can always pick a differnet relay as long as they know the IPv4
address of one. There used to be lists of them. The anycast address is
or should be just a convenience function.
I have suggested that ISP's could advertise 6to4 relay routers to customers
via DHCP draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option, this can also be used to
turn off 6to4 when it is known not to work (e.g. firewall, behind a NAT) or
there is working IPv6.
But rather than make the transition mechanism work there is this mind set
that 6to4 needs to be killed.
Mark
Keith
--
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