[87474] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter (Was: Awful quiet?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Wed Dec 21 11:27:13 2005
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:26:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>
Cc: Jim Popovitch <jimpop@yahoo.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0631BE75-63DC-4C24-A76F-A939E10222A1@dragondata.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Kevin Day wrote:
> 9) Once we started publishing AAAA records for a few sites, we started getting
> complaints from some users that they couldn't reach the sites. Some
> investigating showed that they had inadvertently enabled IPv6 on their desktop
> without having any IPv6 connectivity.
I would hazard an educated guess that the majority of these users had
actually enabled 6to4 via some OS-provided convenience, which *would* work
if it weren't for (a) IPv4 NAT already widely used in "home router"
appliances, resulting in bad 2002:0a00::/24 or 2002:c0a8::/32 addresses, and
(b) many IPv6-capable providers not providing a 2002:: route, or at least
not providing a *working* one, to the 6to4 islands.
Fixing (b) would much allieviate the following when the 6to4 address in
question would otherwise be reachable:
> 11) Almost without fail, the path an IPv6 user takes to reach us (and
> vice-versa) is less optimal than the IPv4 route.
(If a user is implementing 6to4, it usually means that the v4 route *is*
better, so 6to4 becomes a routing policy suggestion as well.)
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
