Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

Wed Jul 13 06:22:20 UTC 2011

On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> 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 =
>> when in fact tunneled traffic can be observed to be on the decline =
>> (possibly because devices particularly hosts that do receive regular =
>> updates receive tweaks to their address selection algorithm).
>> =
>> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2011/04/six-months-six-providers-and-ipv6/
> 
> 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-breaking-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.
> 
>>> 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.
>>> =20
>>> Remember operators are in the position to alleviate lots of the
>>> 6to4 issues themselves.
>>> =20
>>>>> Blocking AAAA over IPv4 transport is just silly. It's just as likely =
>> =3D
>>>> that your
>>>>> AAAA record is destined for an end-host that has native IPv6 =3D
>>>> connectivity
>>>>> with an intermediate resolver that desn't have IPv6 as it is that =3D
>>>> you're
>>>>> sending that to a 6to4 host. Further, there's no reason to believe =
>> the
>>>>> 6to4 host won't attempt to resolve via IPv6, so, it doesn't really =3D=
>> 
>>>> help
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Real network operators have a relatively low BS threshold, they =
>> have
>>>>>> customers to support and businesses to run,  and they don't have =3D
>>>> thumb
>>>>>> wrestle these people who don't actually have any skin in the game.
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> I agree, but, it's not hard to run 6to4 relays and running them does =
>> =3D
>>>> much
>>>>> more to alleviate the problems with 6to4 than anything you proposed
>>>>> above. Indeed, what you proposed above will likely create more =3D
>>>> customer
>>>>> issues rather than reduce them.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Cameron
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>            Ron
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:35 PM
>>>>>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 =
>> =3D
>>>> broken?)
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> In a message written on Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:16:09PM +0200, =3D
>>>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ehmmmm ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing =3D
>>>> lists
>>>>>>>> and participate there, just like a couple of folks from NANOG are =
>> =3D
>>>> already doing.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> The way the IETF and the operator community interact is badly =3D
>>>> broken.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> The IETF does not want operators in many steps of the process.  If =
>> =3D
>>>> you try to bring up operational concerns in early protocol =
>> development =3D
>>>> for example you'll often get a "we'll look at that later" response, =3D=
>> 
>>>> which in many cases is right.  Sometimes you just have to play with =3D=
>> 
>>>> something before you worry about the operational details.  It also =
>> does =3D
>>>> not help that many operational types are not hardcore programmers, =
>> and =3D
>>>> can't play in the sandbox during the major development cycles.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> =3D20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>> --=20
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>>> =20
>> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> 