6to4 status (again)

Brzozowski, John Jason jjmb at jjmb.com
Thu Feb 28 13:15:12 CET 2013

Keith we feel this way as such we deployed 6to4 relays.  Since our
customers were using the same we wanted to make sure it worked as well as
it could even though 6to4 offers a sub-optimal experience similar to other
tunneling technologies we ran trials for but did not deploy.  One of the
main differences with 6to4 is it is there whether we want it to be or not,
this is a bi-product of decisions that were made collectively year ago.

We do feel that 6to4 traffic will go up before it goes down as native IPv6
deployment increases.  Only when native IPv6 reaches reaches a tipping
point do I believe 6to4 we will see a decline in 6to4 traffic and usage.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>wrote:

>  On 02/26/2013 01:23 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Keith Moore <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?
> What I find myself thinking is that if you're not willing to spend more
> money on faster interfaces to the relays (which I see as a purely business
> decision, similar to whether to procure faster links to a peer), then one
> alternative to shutting down the relay entirely might be to advertise the
> route to that relay less favorably, so that it doesn't look like a good
> route to as many peers, thus reducing the load that way.
> Hopefully more access providers will take up the slack so as to provide
> better 6to4 service for their customers, at least until those providers
> provide native v6 access to their customers.   But I do see 6to4 relay as a
> service that probably has to migrate closer to the edge over time until
> there's no longer a need for it.
> Keith
> p.s. At my great distance, it does seem a bit odd for an operator to say,
> in effect, "too many people are wanting to send traffic to this prefix,
> therefore we need to shut down our link to it."     Is that the way
> operators think about prefixes in general?   But I also realize that
> there's nobody who speaks for 2002::/16 so there's no way to go to them and
> say "you need to pay us for more bandwidth".   And I don't think that just
> because an operator is willing to run a relay, that this implies that they
> have to spend arbitrary amounts of money to keep it from dropping packets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20130228/84a05630/attachment.html 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list