[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 6to4 considered a bad thing
On Feb 1, 2008, at 15:23, Alain Durand wrote:
On 2/1/08 4:56 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Alain Durand wrote:
Essentially, expecting to get a functioning 6to4 relay is
expecting a free
lunch. Who is going to pay for it?
If enough ISPs provide working 6to4 relays, serving their own
customers
(that pay for the bandwidth, be it IPv4 or IPv4-encapsulated
IPv6), the
model would work just fine.
Why should ISP X pay to run a 6to4 relay that would in essence
offer transit
for customers of other ISPs?
No one here is asking for ISP X to advertise its 6to4 relays at
public anycast addresses (either IPv4 or IPv6) into the default free
zone.
I think the question you want to ask is this one: why should ISP X
offer 6to4 relay service to its IPv4 customers when it can force them
to pay extra for the additional utility of native IPv6 service?
Admittedly, I don't have an answer to that question, except to say
that the "additional utility" of IPv6 is limited by the fact that
2002::/16 effectively divorced from the IPv6 default free zone by
those same network operators insisting that interior 6to4 relays are
harmful to their insert-noun-phrase-here.
And let's say that ISP X offer the outband
relay for its customers only, how would the packets come back from
the real
IPv6 Internet to ISP X IPv4 network?
By an asymmetric IPv4 path, of course. The 6to4 relay is only a
transition mechanism. It doesn't have to work as well as native
IPv6. It just has to work. If it doesn't work *at all*, then we
should deprecate it.
Is ISP X suppose to announce a
de-aggregate of 2002://16? That would create a huge increase in the
routing
table size...
That's clearly not a good idea.
--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering