Re: implications of 6to4 for v6coex

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-09-20 12:54, Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 20/09/2008, at 12:15 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
>> There is clearly something broken about 6to4, and I'm not sure how to
>> fix it.  Can it be saved as a standard?

Just to be clear, the issue is not with basic 6to4, which was intended
to be implemented only in routers. It's with the "obvious" extension
to allow host-based 6to4, which led fairly quickly to the notion
of anycast relays and the resulting lack of both configuration and of
a discovery protocol.

> 
> 
> It works just fine, and with vendors' current implementations (ie.
> ignoring that paragraph), the concerns that these providers have raised
> are not a problem.
> 
> So, yes, I would say that it's very easy to save, provided that we don't
> attempt to make this mechanism (which is intended for use only in a
> transition period) be all things to everybody. I don't think anyone is
> suggesting that 6to4 is going to be perfect, so let's accept that it's
> not, and instead try to make it practical.

Exactly. It was intended more or less as a work-around for regions
where IPv6 isn't forwarded, and we shouldn't attempt to promote it
beyond that role.

   Brian

> 
> I note that the things we're trading away are problems that any IPv4
> anycast system has, and it works just fine for many fairly important
> things.
> 
> -- 
> Nathan Ward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>