Arguably, transitions technologies like 6to4 and Teredo have already achieved
their purpose. My goal at the time, more than 10 years ago, was to break the
"chicken and egg" deadlock between application developers and network
administrators. That's why I spent such energy on making 6to4 easy to deploy,
or defining Teredo. Transitions technologies convinced developers that
applications could be developed for IPv6 without waiting for every network to
be ready, and applications were indeed developed by Microsoft and others.
Network administrators in the meantime started deploying IPv6, and the presence
of applications arguably helped somewhat -- although I am sure network
administrators add many other motivations.
We are now observing a strong pushback, because massive use of tunneling
technologies makes networks harder to manage. Wide scale deployment of
self-configuring technologies makes levels of services less predictable, and
errors are hard to correct. Self-configuring technologies rely largely on the
good will of others, which is easier to find during a pioneering phase.
Arguably, we are beyond the pioneering phase for IPv6.
I understand Keith's point of view, but it is probably time to start
progressively rolling back the transition technologies. 6to4 is the weakest of
these technologies. It does not traverse NAT, it does not include configuration
verification tests, and it uses asymmetric paths. It makes sense to start the
rollback with 6to4.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf