ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Dropping 2002::/16 considered very harmful

2011-07-08 18:48:33
I, for one, am not interested talking about 6to4 anymore.
On Jul 8, 2011 4:36 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to
drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a
correct error messages to.

This is an awesomely bad idea. As explained in the approved advisory
document, it makes things worse for everybody (the user, the content
provider, and the unfortunate person answering calls from either of
them at the help desk).

On the contrary - it's in everyone's interests to have the return
path working. Once a user manages to get a packet to the content
provider, everybody suffers if the return path fails.

(However, if you are announcing a route to 2002::/16, it must lead
to a relay that will relay all 6to4 packets, with no form of ACL).

Brian

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