6to4 status (again)

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Tue Feb 26 07:27:18 CET 2013

On 02/25/2013 10:23 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com
> <mailto:moore at network-heretics.com>> wrote:
>     The problem is that the advice is based on a false premise.  Native
>     access is NOT yet widely available in many parts of the world.   If
>     it were, there wouldn't be much 6to4 traffic, and turning off 6to4
>     relays wouldn't cause problems.
>     So a recommendation to drop 6to4 relays would, at the present time,
>     be a very harmful recommendation.
> Sure, but as far as I can see, the only alternatives are:
>  1. Upgrade the box with 10G interfaces, incurring substantial cost.
>  2. Drop the packets, degrading service quality.
> Suppose operators take the position that they don't want to upgrade the
> relays because most of the traffic on them comes from third party
> networks, and thus #1 is infeasible. What then?

1. Let 6to4 die like it should have a long time ago.
2. Let the people who care band their resources and pay for it.

When deprecating 6to4 came up last year the hue and cry to keep it 
around was truly astonishing, not the least for the total failure to 
acknowledge reality, which this thread is a good demonstration of.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list