Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <430FFF20-43ED-45BB-846D-FEE8769FC399 () bogus com>, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > =20
> > I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment.  Declaring
> > 6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either.
>
> If the hosts behind it stop using 2002::/16  addresses as a product of a =
> software update which seems rather more likely (also there some evidence =
> for that), it will. that said yes one assumption is that you have to =
> continue to support it.

When you switch the source address preference from 2002::/16 to
IPv4 you loose insight into which machines have 2002::/16 addresses
still without explict testing.

> <snip>
>
> > > It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new =
> relays =3D
> > > when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline =3D
> > > (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular =
> =3D
> > > updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm).
> > > =3D
> > > =
> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/
> > =20
> > Which may or may not be a short term dip.
>
> correlation is not causation but...
>
> =
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/11/apple-fixes-broken-ipv6-by-break=
> ing-it-some-more.ars
>
> >  We are yet to see much in the
> > way of IPv6 only content.  When that appears, which it will, the =
> tunneled
> > traffic will go up unless ISPs have deployed native IPv6 to all =
> customers.
> > Are you willing to bet on which will happen first?
>
> I'm willing to bet that subpar experience due to auto-tunneling is =
> considered a liability for content providers.
>
> > This whole area is in a state of flux.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org