6to4 borkeness (Was: Google and IPv6)

Steve Wilcox stevewilcox at google.com
Thu Mar 20 20:59:40 CET 2008


On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Joe Abley <jabley at ca.afilias.info> wrote:

>
> On 19 Mar 2008, at 13:07 , Steve Wilcox wrote:
>
> > There is no 6to4 at Google today, whether there should be one I'm
> > seeing arguments pro and con. But it seems somewhat orthogonal as
> > there is no guarantee that having a 6to4 here would be the one that
> > inbound packets are taking and providing we make sure that the
> > outbound is going through a reliable path (I noted earlier that the
> > your.org 6to4 was selected in Amsterdam) what would hosting a relay
> > fix?
>
> The problem you could hope to fix at Google is having a stable route
> for 2002::/16 that leads somewhere that you control. That would
> eliminate the dependence on a third party for encaps of your reply
> traffic back towards 2002::/16-numbered clients.
>
> > Perhaps more pressure on transit providers to find better (and
> > untunneled)
> > IPv6 paths would also be helpful... ;-)
>
> Well, true, but that will have near-zero effect on vista clients
> connected to networks whose last mile isn't going to feature native v6
> any time soon.


What is the advantage to take a v4 client accessing a v4 service and then go
and drop an asymmetric mtu reduced v6 tunnel in the middle anyway?

Steve

-- 
Global Infrastructure
Google Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20080320/02351e13/attachment.htm


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list