Thoughts about ipv6 white listing

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 00:24:04 CET 2010


Tore,

If all ISPs with content providers offering IPv6 service
provide a 2002::/16 route to a properly working relay,
we'd eliminate many of the return path problems.

I agree that if people are filtering proto 41 there is
a problem, and that is in the hands of the operators.

I agree that if transit providers don't provide a properly
working relay on 192.88.99.1, there is a problem. That is
in the hands of the transit ISP.

Fixing these problems is in the ISPs' interests, since not
fixing them annoys their customers and generates help desk
calls.

The point is that ISPs can fix these problems and we haven't yet
documented how they should do so. We should do that rather than
encouraging the lazy way out. And yes, I do plan to write an IETF
draft.

Thanks for the pointers.

Regards
   Brian

On 2010-12-05 08:39, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Brian E Carpenter
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> The reason why 6to4 isn't working isn't at the content provider end.
> If the content providers could flip a magic switch to make 6to4 work
> reliably, we'd done it a long time ago.  But when the access network is
> filtering protocol 41, for instance, what else can we tell the affected
> end users to do, except to turn off 6to4 or IPv6?
> 
> Perhaps you will find these links enlightening:
> 
> http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/6to4-how-bad-is-it-really
> http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/162-ripe61.pdf
> 
> Best regards,


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list