[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: implications of 6to4 for v6coex
- To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
- Subject: Re: implications of 6to4 for v6coex
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:49:31 +1200
- Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=FhYKzM9tYRqOQA5A13ncOEMxT3FC9ijaRFSPCxYCFXQoM86HLMz6oxuqNjr56bBqTF UrxWM1ef6N8MCUcLDNQN6k6RUnESnExkCSfRppmbdQKZMPYQXPVfsNYxheakj5SsqToM TVFzKF5eFV/5I1lOVwmUi41f+NBoiE3865bvo=
- In-reply-to: <6C2047ED-8BFF-43B1-A6D4-68FDA93D8013@apple.com>
- Organization: University of Auckland
- References: <6C2047ED-8BFF-43B1-A6D4-68FDA93D8013@apple.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
James,
Long story ==> very short:
> The reasoning behind my idea is that service providers really do not want their 6to4 relays to be available outside their own networks,
That may or may not be true, and I could give you a current example where it's
definitely not true (i.e. an ISP intentionally announcing its 6to4 relay
at an exchange point). In cases where it is true, I certainly agree
that operational practice must be to ensure that the address is not
advertised - in fact I'm plagued at the moment by a 6to4 relay
that is widely advertised but that doesn't actually offer service.
However I don't really get why we'd benefit from reserving special IPv4
space to be not advertised. I do see why we'd benefit from making it
clear that the relay anycast should only be advertised within a scope
where it actually works, but that seems as much an issue for an O'Reilly
book as for an RFC.
Brian