Hi Lorenzo,
On 2011-06-10 06:20, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>wrote:
So the existence of 6to4 is in itself a significant barrier for IPv6
deployment for server operators and content providers.
non sequitur. Existing server operators and content providers can easily
provide 6to4 addresses for their servers and content, which will be used in
preference to native v6 addresses.
No. According to Geoff's data, one of the main reasons 6to4 fails is a
firewall that blocks IPv4 protocol 41 traffic. Even if content providers
published 6to4 addresses, those connections would still fail.
To be clear, that statistic applies to clients whose SYN packet reaches
the server, but who never respond to SYN/ACK. It's a presumption that
the problem is Protocol 41 filtering - probably correct, but there are
other possible causes.
Also, we have no possible way of knowing how many clients send SYN packets
towards a 6to4 anycast relay, but those packets are blackholed and never
reach the intended server. From the client's viewpoint, this also looks
like a missing SYN/ACK, leading to retries and eventual fallback to IPv4.
In other words, the real failure rate may be much worse than Geoff reports,
but we have no way of measuring it.
Application developers should develop using manually configured tunnels,
not 6to4. At least they don't have a 20% failure rate.
How do you know? How do you even measure the failure rate of manually
configured tunnels in the aggregate?
In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs. I suspect that
the answer will be that much fewer users have configured tunnels than 6to4,
and that the failure rate is much lower.
Er, I'm currently on 2001:388:f000::xxxx
Do you have an algorithm that will tell you whether that is native
or a configured tunnel?
Brian
I don't think you can monitor that kind of traffic the way you can 6to4,
because the traffic patterns are much more constrained. It's been awhile
since I used manually configured tunnels (from a well-known tunnel broker).
But the one time I did try them, 6to4 worked better overall - lower latency
and lower failure rate.
Please try again. You will be pleasantly surprised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf