On 3/10/2008, at 2:26 AM, Erik Kline wrote:Well it seems to be working well enough (or popular enough, anyway). What if I said that 69.8% of IPv6-enabled users who visit google.com have 6to4?
As we discussed in Montreal, this proves that there is, for v6 packets that have the prefix of 6to4 (2002::/16), a path from ipv6.google.com servers to the IPv4 Internet.
But it doesn't prove that clients of IPv6.Google, if they try to reach another IPv6 server, will always have a 6to4 return path for their packets. similarly, they may not be reachable, as servers, from any client having native IPv6 connectivity.
This is the reason why I introduced 6rd (draft-despres-6rd-00).A 6rd ISP simply replaces, in IPv6 prefixes its provides to its customers, the standard 6to4 prefix by an IPv6 prefix that has been assigned to it. Thus any customer site of this ISP as guaranteed IPv6 connectivity, provided 6rd is supported in its home-gateway. A return path is available from any server or client remote host that has IPv6 connectivity (a 2002::/16 route form this host toward to 6to4 relay is no longer needed).
So far, Free, the second ISP in France with several million customers, is AFAIK the only one that has deployed IPv6 using 6rd.
I am about to revise draft-despres-6rd-00, essentially to no longer include a proposal for a 6rd DHCP option. ((1) It isn't necessary for ISPs that, like Free, deploy IPv6 in sites where they provide home-gateways. (2) Without the DHCP option, the proposed RFC stays purely informational. Having no IANA or protocol implication, it can follow a much much shorter path to be published.)
Regards, RDPS: If not too complex, it would be really nice to have additional statistics giving, in the 30% users that are not 6to4, which proportion is Teredo (2001:0000::/32), and which proportion is neither.
Even more ideally, at least for me, on would have the percentage of Free customers (2a01:0e30::/28)
Thanks if you can do anything on this.