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

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 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.

<snip>

> > It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new relays =
> > when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline =
> > (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular =
> > updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm).
> > =
> > http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/
>
> 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-breaking-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.
>
> > > What would have been much better would have been to encourage CPE
> > > vendors to release images which address some of the known issues.
> > > Just adding a check box saying "enable 6to4" and for ISP to send
> > > out email to say "check your router vendor web site for fixed
> > > images".  The better fix would be to get them to also add support
> > > for draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option-02.txt which greys out
> > > the checkbox when 0.0.0.0 is sent as a response to the option.
> > > =20
> > > Remember operators are in the position to alleviate lots of the
> > > 6to4 issues themselves.
> > > =20
> > > > > Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as likely =
> > =3D
> > > > that your
> > > > > AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =3D
> > > > connectivity
> > > > > with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that =3D
> > > > you're
> > > > > sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe =
> > the
> > > > > 6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really =3D=
> >
> > > > help
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they =
> > have
> > > > > > customers to support and businesses to run,  and they don't have =3D
> > > > thumb
> > > > > > wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
> > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them does =
> > =3D
> > > > much
> > > > > more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you proposed
> > > > > above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more =3D
> > > > customer
> > > > > issues rather than reduce them.
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > > Owen
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > Cameron
> > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > >            Ron
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell () ufp org]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
> > > > > > > To: nanog () nanog org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 =
> > =3D
> > > > broken?)
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, =3D
> > > > Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing =3D
> > > > lists
> > > > > > > > and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are =
> > =3D
> > > > already doing.
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly =3D
> > > > broken.
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process.  If =
> > =3D
> > > > you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol =
> > development =3D
> > > > for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, =3D=
> >
> > > > which in many cases is right.  Sometimes you just have to play with =3D=
> >
> > > > something before you worry about the operational details.  It also =
> > does =3D
> > > > not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, =
> > and =3D
> > > > can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > > > =3D20
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > > =3D20
> > > > =20
> > > > =20
> > > --=20
> > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org
> > > =20
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org