current 6to4 state
oneingray at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 06:49:12 CET 2012
>>>>> Steinar H Gunderson <sesse at google.com> writes:
>>>>> 2012/11/10 Ivan Shmakov <oneingray at gmail.com>:
>> 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
>> 126.96.36.199” 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.
> It's simple; if you wish, you can add a 6to4 decapsulation on every
> server if you wish.
Well, my question was about 6to4 /encapsulation/, actually.
AIUI, there's likely to be just a single 6to4 relay
decapsulating the packets sent from 6to4 hosts to the IPv6 nodes
proper. However, there'll be a lot of such relays on the
reverse direction, and thus it's the broken /encapsulating/
relay case that'd likely be much harder to troubleshoot.
> I've done it a few times, with a marked increase in reliability to
> 6to4-using hosts. (Nowadays it's quite irrelevant, though, since
> 6to4 is all but extinct.)
My numbers are hardly representative (and are rather a
back-of-the-envelope calculation), but while operating a
BitTorrent DHT6 node for a short time, I've observed that 6to4
constitutes over 90% of all /48 prefixes seen, being responsive
for 36% of all messages seen by the node. The latter number, if
any, should be more representative of the present 6to4
deployment, due to the possibility of 6to4 nodes using a dynamic
IPv4 address, and thus more than one IPv6 /48 prefix, and also
because /48 may prove itself a bit coarse for the native IPv6
FSF associate member #7257
More information about the ipv6-ops