ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support

2011-06-14 13:35:52
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

Keith is correct, and the further issue is that the *-only-* reason the
'poorly managed' relays are in the path is that the content providers are
refusing to deploy the matching 6to4 router that would take a direct
connection from the customer. 

Well, to be fair, they weren't supposed to have to get involved with 6to4 if 
they didn't want to.  To the extent that 6to4 causes pain for operators that 
don't provide relay routers, this is a mostly-unanticipated and unintended 
consequence.  (Operators weren't expected to *like* 6to4, because at the time 
6to4 was written there was a general dislike for tunnels in general.  But 
neither was it expected to cause them as much pain as it apparently does.)

6to4 direct between the content and consumer is still an 'unmanaged' tunnel
which takes exactly the same path as IPv4 would, so the 'badness' is not due
to managed vs. not. In the grand scheme of things, the last thing the
content providers want is for the network to wrest control over streams into
a walled-garden model. Unfortunately they are not thinking this through,
they are just whining because the deployment of a second prefix on their
content servers does not conform to their IPv4-think dream world. 

Though it's clear that some operators want to impose the walled garden, I think 
6to4 can cause some pain even for those that don't.  I'm hopeful that this pain 
will be short-lived and will be remedied in the short term by (a) relay router 
operators acting more responsibly, (b) content-providers providing their own 
6to4 addresses, their own 6to4 gateways for return traffic, and/or (c) (less 
ideally) DNS tricks to minimize IPv6 exposure to networks known to have trouble 
with 6to4.  In the not-so-much-longer term I hope the pain is relieved by 
widespread adoption of native IPv6 or at least "managed" transition schemes 
such as 6rd. 

But did we really expect there to not be growing pains associated with IPv6 
transition and deployment?   We certainly had them with IPv4 transition and 
deployment.  After all, 6to4 is pretty much the ARPAnet/MILnet to Internet 
transition revisited; that's where I got the idea.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf