Rémi Després wrote: [..] >> I have to state though that there are a LOT of happy 6to4 users, but >> they are only accessing more or less local resources. Thus network-wise >> not too far away, which thus makes it a more or less controlled environment. >> > If they do 6to4 to 6to4, which I suppose should often be the case so > far, they are quite right to be happy. They have a good service. > > And this will remain so as long as they don't try to do 6to4 to non 6to4 > without checking first that a path exists, which current OS don't do. Indeed. Though there are lots of users also happily using anycasted-6to4. The reason being that the services they are using from their 6to4 address are located at ISPs that are either clueful and pro-active in fixing issues or that they are located closely to the relay which is their anycast node. In that case one basically has an automatically set-up proto-41 tunnel directly to the service you are using, and then things work quite smoothly. The moment though that other networks, who did setup 6to4 but who don't really check their service get involved, then things start to break miraculously. And as a content-provider on native IPv6 there is not much to do about those kind of networks, but they do affect connectivity to the enduser. > Even if connectivity is checked, the QoS of the 6to4 relay router they > happen to have used is in general not guaranteed, so that backing up to > IPv4 may in general be safer. (This problem doesn't exist with 6rd.) Well it doesn't exist in 6rd because then the infrastructure is all ISP owned and most likely they do care about their network. Note that 'checking connectivity' is not always a good thing, especially when one is checking connectivity to a well-maintained service, that one might work, but any other network will just still fail. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature