On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

[Brian E Carpenter]

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
(http://www.apricot2010.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/18997/IPv6-at-Google.pdf)
However, he did say that their biggest contingent of users is
from France, and that means 6rd.

    Brian