Re: implications of 6to4 for v6coex

[Brian Carpenter <brian@cs.auckland.ac.nz>]

[resend to bypass stupid DNS blacklist]

On 2008-09-16 07:35, james woodyatt wrote:
...
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I had an extensive discussion off-list with Nathan Ward about this, and
> he helped me refine my ideas considerably.  When I get the time to work
> on my draft, it will include a better-composed justification for
> allocating a new special-use block.

OK, good, but it could be a hard battle to get the RIRs on board with
yet another special-use prefix.

...
> In any case, we've heard technical objections from service providers on
> the V6OPS list to deploying 6to4 and Teredo relay routers before, and it
> seems like either A) those objections will need to be addressed for
> IPv4-IPv6 coexistence to work, or B) we should deprecate those
> transition mechanisms for which we cannot satisfy the legitimate
> technical concerns of very large service providers actively resisting
> the deployment of necessary relay routers.

Well, I can't speak for Teredo, but 6to4 was specifically conceived
as a way of bypassing recalcitrant ISPs unwilling to offer native
IPv6 service. So deprecating it would be exactly the wrong thing:
an ISP that doesn't like 6to4 packets should be incented to provide
IPv6 service.

    Brian