On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

Martin Millnert martin at millnert.se
Thu Mar 11 13:22:02 CET 2010

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 11:58 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 11:56, Erik Kline wrote:
> > Not to be too snarky, but how about 0?  Just let 6to4 die.  Please,
> > please, please don't waste any time with 6to4.
> +1
> Nick

Well, if providing 6to4 relays for the gigabits upon gigabits of 6to4
IPv6 traffic there is on the Internet is actually harmful for the
deployment of IPv6, we'd gladly stop to provide the service. Same for
the Teredo relay we run, which considering your stance on providing 6to4
relays, I'm sure you are ten times as eager to kill off. :)

However, let's be practical here for a while.

If nobody provided neither 6to4 relays nor Teredo relays, 95%
(statistics made up on the spot, but prove me wrong) of IPv6 traffic
today would disappear, surely including breakage of ~all IPv6 hosted
sites for end-users.

So while I'm all for native v6 everywhere, the community has already
made sure that current operating systems provide transition mechanisms,
and even-more-so, activate them by default.
  Isn't it just a little late to retract operational support for them
now since they're already there?

If we do agree that Internet users are better off not having IPv6 at all
unless it's native, then we should convince OS vendors to ship updates
that disable these functions.

Martin Millnert <martin at millnert.se>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100311/8a5fac62/attachment.bin 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list