On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700
Cameron Byrne <cb(_dot_)list6(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
<snip>
In the meantime, i null route the 6to4 anycast address because it
creates half open state in my CGN. Been doing that for at least 5
years.
So, to be clear, you're not making an observation that 6to4 is broken,
based on measurement or actual use, you're actively breaking it.
My next step is filtering AAAA over IPv4 access because 6to4
client brokeness won't die on its own, that will be rolled out in a
few months. Operating a network means making the tweeks that keep the
wheels rolling, and we don't find many technology purist in my line of
work.
I think the root cause of your issues is the deployment of IPv4 CGN in
the first place before IANA and the RIRs ran out of IPv4 addresses by
the sounds of it. I think then means that any protocol that your
customers try to use that would create unwanted state in your IPv4 CGN
should be, by your definition, declared "historic", not just 6to4. When
a customer signs up to your service, are they informed as to which
protocols and applications they are allowed to use? My opinion is that
if there are restrictions on what protocols and applications customers
can operate then their service is not a real Internet service. The
majority of, if not all, residential broadband service providers in my
market hold the same belief - it seems to be the "pure" mobile
carriers that commonly don't.
Other access providers like 6to4 so much that they want to NAT it.
This is the reason why historic is the proper term.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-02
I look forward to that discussion on ietf@
Cameron
Keith
_______________________________________________
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