6to4 sub-topic [Re: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
> 
> > what about the others, like 6to4? Do we still need this despite the
> > issues with the relays?
> 
> There seem to be a huge amount of traffic here in the Netherlands
> going over 6to4, this because there is the newszilla6.xs4all.nl
> box that has an open IPv6 NNTP (binary) service. People only need
> to type 'ipv6 install' on their XP boxes and they can connect.
> Thus I think one should not forget it even though it isn't totally
> abuse proof and not easily traceable/debuggable, which is one of
> the things I see as a big negative. It also doesn't cross NAT's
> but proto-41 doesn't do that either unless the NAT-router is
> configured correctly where possible.

I think this is about right. I confess that 6to4 was invented as
a provocative technology that would allow some relatively easy
IPv6 deployment without too much "official" support, and
it has succeeded... with some disadvantages as noted. But whether
"we" (v6ops) need it or not, it is there. Personally, I'm
happy to see it sit at PS for a while longer, and publish Pekka's
security addendum as Informational. It really doesn't matter
whether 6to4 is on some approved list or not.

   Brian