[142777] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Wed Jul 13 02:22:40 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110713055952.EC84111CD0AA@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:22:20 -0700
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment. Declaring
> 6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either.
If the hosts behind it stop using 2002::/16 addresses as a product of a =
software update which seems rather more likely (also there some evidence =
for that), it will. that said yes one assumption is that you have to =
continue to support it.
<snip>
>> It is really hard to justify the expansion and deployment of new =
relays =3D
>> when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline =3D
>> (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular =
=3D
>> updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm).
>> =3D
>> =
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/
>=20
> Which may or may not be a short term dip.
correlation is not causation but...
=
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/11/apple-fixes-broken-ipv6-by-break=
ing-it-some-more.ars
> We are yet to see much in the
> way of IPv6 only content. When that appears, which it will, the =
tunneled
> traffic will go up unless ISPs have deployed native IPv6 to all =
customers.
> Are you willing to bet on which will happen first?
I'm willing to bet that subpar experience due to auto-tunneling is =
considered a liability for content providers.
> This whole area is in a state of flux.
>=20
>>> What would have been much better would have been to encourage CPE
>>> vendors to release images which address some of the known issues.
>>> Just adding a check box saying "enable 6to4" and for ISP to send
>>> out email to say "check your router vendor web site for fixed
>>> images". The better fix would be to get them to also add support
>>> for draft-andrews-v6ops-6to4-router-option-02.txt which greys out
>>> the checkbox when 0.0.0.0 is sent as a response to the option.
>>> =3D20
>>> Remember operators are in the position to alleviate lots of the
>>> 6to4 issues themselves.
>>> =3D20
>>>>> Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as =
likely =3D
>> =3D3D
>>>> that your
>>>>> AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =3D3D
>>>> connectivity
>>>>> with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that =
=3D3D
>>>> you're
>>>>> sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe =
=3D
>> the
>>>>> 6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really =
=3D3D=3D
>>=20
>>>> help
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they =3D=
>> have
>>>>>> customers to support and businesses to run, and they don't have =
=3D3D
>>>> thumb
>>>>>> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the =
game.
>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>> I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them =
does =3D
>> =3D3D
>>>> much
>>>>> more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you =
proposed
>>>>> above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more =3D3D=
>>>> customer
>>>>> issues rather than reduce them.
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>> Cameron
>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
>>>>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is =
IPv6 =3D
>> =3D3D
>>>> broken?)
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, =
=3D3D
>>>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing =
=3D3D
>>>> lists
>>>>>>>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG =
are =3D
>> =3D3D
>>>> already doing.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly =
=3D3D
>>>> broken.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process. =
If =3D
>> =3D3D
>>>> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol =3D
>> development =3D3D
>>>> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, =
=3D3D=3D
>>=20
>>>> which in many cases is right. Sometimes you just have to play with =
=3D3D=3D
>>=20
>>>> something before you worry about the operational details. It also =
=3D
>> does =3D3D
>>>> not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, =
=3D
>> and =3D3D
>>>> can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>> --=3D20
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>>> =3D20
>>=20
> --=20
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>=20
