On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Mar 11 21:31:46 CET 2010

On 2010-03-12 03:12, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:47:15PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> Martin Millnert wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:24 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>> The thing with 6to4 & Teredo (& Tunnel Brokers & 6rd etc etc)
>>> <snip>
>>>> I do also hope folks realize that one day or
>>>> another they should be turning those services off, especially in the
>>>> light of security and the abuse that can be done through them (spoofing
>>>> ole).
>>> Agreed.  For the same reason, the RIR:s should make sure that 6rd
>>> allocations are transitional only, ie temporary. In other words, once
>>> the transition is complete, the space will be returned. This is another
>>> topic though and is probably more appropriate for $RIR-ipv6-wg-list.
>> That address space comes from the ISP's own /32 (or more), and thus, if
>> they plan correctly they can easily stop doing 6rd at one point and then
>> re-use that address space for something else.
> Agreed, that's one beauty of 6rd - the ISP can contain its transition
> within its own address space, at its own pace.
> I'm interested in what Nick's many gigabits of 6to4 traffic is - what
> are the apps people are running?   For us, at least for website access,
> less than 1% of the IPv6 traffic we get is from 6to4 sources.

But then, people likely to access your site are mainly in NRENs
where there is native v6. I think the figures for Google v6 would be
more interesting, but they aren't in Lorenzo's latest talk
However, he did say that their biggest contingent of users is
from France, and that means 6rd.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list