On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/02/2011 20:49, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:44:24 -0700
Doug Barton<dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us> wrote:
On 07/02/2011 18:50, Mark Smith wrote:
Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6
deployment?
It's been discussed ad nauseum in numerous fora.
Discussion isn't evidence, as people usually don't post any data to
support their assertions.
And yet, they did.
I think it's been adequately supported that the interaction of 6to4 with (a)
misconfigured relay routers and/or (b) protocol 41 filters, hinders one kind of
native v6 deployment - i.e. providing the same content via both v4 and v6,
where the client's host prefers v6 (including 6to4) destinations over v4
destinations. There's clearly a disincentive to a content provider to
advertise v6 addresses for its domains, if use of those v6 addresses will
result in significantly slower or less reliable access for any significant set
of users. That much should be obvious.
However, that's not the only kind of IPv6 deployment that matters.
Meanwhile misconfigured relay routers can be fixed, or their advertisements
filtered; and hosts can and should be updated to prefer IPv4 destinations over
6to4 destinations. 6to4, even when enabled, should be a "last resort".
All of these fixes should be implemented. But that last fix alone should
address (no pun intended) the v4/v6 content providers' concerns while still
preserving use of 6to4 for cases where IPv6 is really needed. And that last
fix can be deployed much more quickly than the "nuclear option" of trying to
get 6to4 support removed from products.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf