6to4 route at AS27552? (AS7922?)
oneingray at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 22:18:56 CET 2012
>>>>> Gert Doering <gert at space.net> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:01:23PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> I wonder what would be the cost of disabling 6to4 on each and every
>> single networking device willing to connect 2001:4830::/32 (and has
>> 6to4 currently enabled), as compared to the cost of fixing one
>> single route?
JFTR: the issue was resolved around 2012-11-09 21:06 UTC.
Thanks to those involved.
> You don't need to specifically disable 6to4, if those devices are
> well-behaved and prefer IPv4 to 6to4,
Somehow, I'm not aware of a free software resolver library
that'd do that.
Also, somewhat surprisingly, my GNU/Linux hosts seem to prefer
6to4 IPv6 addresses over non-6to4 ones (where there're both)
when initiating connections. (It may be some misconfiguration
on my part, though.)
> and you're not connecting to IPv6-only services from
> IPv4-only-plus-6to4 clients, and you're not putting 2002:: addresses
> as destinations into DNS.
> "Fixing 6to4 with anycast relays run by volunteering networks that do
> not guarantee anything" is not possible.
> Emphasis on the "anycast relays" bit.
Which makes me wonder on what are the costs of operating one's
own “IPv6-to-6to4” relay? As it seems, the “no valid route to
188.8.131.52” case is much easier to troubleshoot that the
converse “no valid route to 2002::/16” one, so the latter may
indeed deserve some extra care.
FSF associate member #7257
More information about the ipv6-ops