Thoughts about ipv6 white listing

Erik Kline ek at
Sat Dec 4 20:44:37 CET 2010

On 4 December 2010 11:09, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at> wrote:
> On 2010-12-05 07:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 04/12/2010 18:42, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> A content provider is not going to knock 470,000 users off line, that
>>> just
>>> isn't going to happen.
>> Think again.
> Except that it's encouraging the wrong solution (turn off IPv6
> and 6to4 at the subscriber end if they don't work).
> The right solution is: make them work, which is mainly the
> responsibility of the ISPs at the content provider end.

I'm really not sure how to parse this last sentence.  Can you clarify?

Past experience shows that users apparently suffer in silence, and
they do not call their ISP if only 1 destination is down.  They just
assume that destination is having some problem.  Hell, I would
probably do the same thing and just suck it up, until several hours
had passed (assuming I /really/ needed to reach that destination such
that I kept trying; otherwise I'd probably wait a day or even more).

Statistically speaking, a network like Comcast's will have an upper
limit of O(10,000) broken users/NAT'd endpoints (see Jason Livingood's
presentation at IETF79).  [To be clear, for the record: this is not in
any way Comcast's fault.]  Let us assume, for the sake of argument,
that Comcast were willing to fund the contacting of and upgrading of
or CPE replacement for these users/NAT'd endpoints.  Super nice guys!
So, how do they find them?  How does a content provider help with
finding them without painting a privacy-concern-seeking missile target
on itself?

Ron Broersma has repeatedly said that folks shouldn't be afraid to
"break some glass".  But everybody has their own notion of what "some"

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list