Yahoo and IPv6

Igor Gashinsky igor at
Tue May 10 06:17:46 UTC 2011

:: >> In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency related issues
:: >> they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and publishing
:: >> the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their content. They
:: >> choose to hold their breath and turn blue, blaming the network for the lack
:: >> of 5-9's access to the eyeballs when they hold at least part of a solution
:: >> in their own hands.
:: > 
:: > Looking at that from the content provider side for a second, what is their motivation for doing it? The IETF created 6to4, and some foolish OS and/or hardware vendors enabled it by default. So you're saying that it's up to the content providers to spend money to fix a problem they didn't create, when the easy/free solution is simply not to turn on IPv6 at all? I completely fail to see an incentive for the content providers to do this, but maybe I'm missing something.
:: > 

So, just for the record, I am not speaking for my employer, and am 
speaking strictly for myself here, and I'm going to try to keep this my 
one and only message about finger-pointing :)

The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all trying to do 
now is figure out how to deal with the present (sucky) situation. The 
current reality is that for a non-insignificant percentage of users when 
you enable dual-stack, they are gong to drop off the face of the planet. 
Now, for *you*, 0.026% may be insignificant (and, standalone, that number 
is insignificant), but for a global content provider that has ~700M users, 
that's 182 *thousand* users that *you*, *through your actions* just took 
out.. 182,000 - that is *not* insignificant

*That* is what world ipv6 day is about to me -- getting enough attention 
at the problem so that all of us can try to move the needle in the right 
direction. If enough users realize that they are broken, and end up 
"fixing themselves", then it will be a resounding success. And, yes, to 
me, disabling broken ipv6 *is* "fixing themselves". If they turn broken 
ipv6 into working ipv6, even better, I just hope all the access networks 
staffed up their helpdesk to deal with the call volumes..

And, if the breakage stats remain bad, well, that's what DNS
"whitelists/blacklists" are going to be for..

:: While we're not directly a content provider, we do host several of them and we do
:: run the largest network of 6to4 relays that I am aware of. In our experience at HE,
:: this has dramatically improved the IPv6 experience for our clients. As such, I would
:: think that providing a better user experience should serve as reasonable motivation
:: for any rational content provider. It's not like running 6to4 relays is difficult or
:: expensive.

No, running *return* 6to4 relays is not difficult at all, in fact, some 
content providers have a ton of them up right now. The problem is that 
content providers can't control the forward relays, or protocol 41 
filtering that's out in the wild. Also, not all breakage is caused by 
6to4, there are still quite a few cases of other breakage, and *that* is 
what's pushing us towards whitelisting.


:: > And can we please stop pretending that this is an easy thing for the content providers to do? Big content networks like Yahoo! have dozens of POPs, and hundreds of address ranges. The IETF is *still* working on tweaking 6to4, so even if the content providers put up these relays today, and somehow figure out how to test them, their work is not done.
:: > 
:: It is relatively easy to do, even with dozens of POPs. There isn't anything special you
:: have to do for the hundreds of address ranges, really, so I don't buy that as being a
:: meaningful part of the argument.

I think this is a red herring - return relays were never *the* problem.

:: > I do agree with you that pointing fingers at this stage is really not helpful. I continue to maintain that being supportive of those content networks that are willing to wade in is the right answer.
:: > 
:: Agreed, but, it's also important to point out when they're starting to swim in directions
:: that are counterproductive, such as having help sites that advise users to turn off
:: IPv6 with fixing their IPv6 capabilities as a secondary option.

"We recommend disabling IPv6 or seeking assistance in order to fix your 
system's IPv6 configuration through your ISP or computer manufacturer"

So, your problem is that a help page gives the user 2 options, 
the first one of them being a quick and easy fix that a user can do 
himself in less then a minute, and suggesting contacting the ISP or 
manufacturer *second* (and possibly spending quite a bit of time on 
hold/troubleshooting, and then saying "screw it")?!? 

Honestly, I think the people who want ipv6 to work, and are willing and 
capable to troubleshoot it, will; and those who don't will just 
turn it off... Seems like the right outcome to me..

(man, did I pick a good day to be on an airplane, or what)

More information about the NANOG mailing list