--On Friday, June 10, 2011 15:10 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
<joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm a content provider. I'm am prepared to turn on more ipv6
services that are visible to consumers. 6to4 is a visible and
measurable source of collateral damage. If consenting adults
want to use it that's fine, I would greatly appreciate it if
the facility were:
* off by default
* considered harmful when not deliberately used.
ok
The gradually declining determinism that we fully expect to
experience from ipv4 access networks and mobile broadband in
particular we expect to be hard enough to manage without those
users riding in over 6to4.
I think the two documents at present encourage:
* vendors an implementors to consider not using or a least
disabling by default 6to4 auto-tunneling in existing and
future implementations.
* the deployment of additional 6to4 anycast relays which if
done would help address issue that existing users of 6to4 who
will be with us for a while as well as those who would prefer
to use it would benefit from.
Actually not. That is certainly what the "advice" document
encourages. But "Historic" is a sufficiently blunt instrument
that moving the base 6to4 specs to Historic could be interpreted
by either vendors or operators as "if you had a transition
strategy based on using 6to4, or are using it today, 6to4 is
sufficiently bad news that it is reasonable to just disable it,
and IPv6 along with it, instead until some unspecified magical
event occurs". I know that isn't what you intend or how you
would read it, but it is a reading of "Historic" that is
perfectly consistent with things we have used Historic for in
the past.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf