On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

[Jeroen Massar]

Martin Millnert wrote:
> 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.

Wow, please provide those statistics somewhere. I am sure lots of people
would love to see this, especially with a small analysis of what the
traffic most likely is (the answer is most very likely NNTP).

> 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. :)

Teredo has the same issues as 6to4: anycast in both IPv4 and IPv6 thus
you never know the path that the packets will follow, thus it is
horribly hard to debug; unless you have access to every single hop in
the path of course.

THAT is the reason why 6to4 and Teredo are a bad thing: debugging.
Over all these years there have been a lot of problems with those setups
and people keep on complaining as it is causing brokeness.
And no, there is no magic way to fix this, if you have it though, please
illuminate the rest of the world with your awesome idea.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100311/e0211bb3/attachment.sig>