On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Mar 14 21:29:10 CET 2010

On 2010-03-15 08:31, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> to put it bluntly: if you don't get IPv6 from your SP, then don't bother. you are doing more harm to IPv6 deployment than good.
>> Extremism and exclusionary attitudes and practices have done and will do more harm to IPv6 deployment than good.
> obviously it isn't as simple as that. start off with the simple rule and make your exceptions as you see fit.
> in moving towards a production quality IPv6 Internet, you don't see any issues with 'unmanaged tunnels'?

As one of the authors of RFC 3056, it was my very conscious intention
that 6to4 should be a subversive technology that could punch through,
and quite possibly annoy or embarass, IPv4-only service providers.
So it had two aims: give some kind of connectivity easily to early
adopters stuck behind such service providers, and provide an incentive
for those service providers to offer real IPv6 service instead.

I can't speak for the author of RFC 3068 and RFC 4380, but I suspect
a similar motivation.

Judging by this thread, the plan is working ;-)

But I don't see why we need a new plan to get rid of these mechanisms.
They will go away spontaneously as ISPs add native support. Maybe in
ten years it will be time to start picking off any IPv4-only ISPs
that have survived, but I think most of them will have gone bust


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list