[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look



Rémi Denis-Courmont  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:16 AM:
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote:
  
[moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote:
    
RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm
than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.
      
I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a
proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than
6to4.  I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent
on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a
working group activity.
    

Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of those. 6RD 
solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_it_.

But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup without ISP 
support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4.
  
Thanks for your comment.

Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUST remain possible.
But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.

6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for the 6to4 anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being deprecated.

I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY be used if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case.

Regards,

RD