[v6ops] Who is stilll running 6to4 relays (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Nov 19 20:28:47 CET 2014

With the same Bcc:

>    Internet service
>    providers SHOULD filter out routes to 

It is pretty clear enough to me (as document editor) that there
is no consensus in the v6ops WG for this sentence, which was
added after some earlier discussion in the WG. The final
consensus has to be judged by the WG chairs, but my guess is
that we'll delete that sentence and leave the decision up to
individual operators.

(The argument is that this route helps people who are still
successfully using anycast 6to4, whether intentionally or by
default, and filtering it would hurt them without helping anyone


On 19/11/2014 20:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> BCC'ing ipv6-ops at cluenet.net thus a bit of background info:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt currently contains:
> Section 4 "Deprecation"
> 8<------------------------
>    Current operators of an anycast 6to4 relay with the IPv4 address
> SHOULD review the information in [RFC6343] and the
>    present document, and then consider carefully when the anycast relay
>    can be discontinued as traffic diminishes.  Internet service
>    providers SHOULD filter out routes to  However, networks
>    SHOULD NOT filter out packets whose source address is,
>    because this is normal 6to4 traffic from a 6to4 return relay
>    somewhere in the Internet.
> ------------------------>8
> Hence this BCC to poll what the operators of these current relays think
> about this and what they think they will do.
> Note that the discussion is really taking place on v6ops at ietf.org hence
> to post you either have to be (temporarily) subscribed and/or post
> anyway and wait for one of the listadmins to approve your messages.
> Below the view that RIPEs RIS thinks are the current 6to4 anycast relays.
> On 2014-11-19 08:35, Tim Chown wrote:
> [..]
>> I wonder what the first publicly announced IPv4 6to4 relay was.
>> Perhaps SWITCH (via Simon Leinen) or FUNET (Pekka Savola)?
>> I remember the days of SWITCH’s relay being a world 6to4 magnet.
>> Would be poetic to let them be the last to switch off too, if they’re still running :)
> Afaik the SWITCH one is gone for a long long time already.
> FUNET is still up, but only limited in BGP, only RRC13 in Moscow sees
> it, which is funny as for instance RRC07 in Stockholm does not.
> The list:
> https://stat.ripe.net/widget/looking-glass#w.resource=
>  8903 = ES BT Espana
>  6939 = US Hurricane Electric*
>  7575 = AU AARnet
> 16150 = SE Availo (Port80)*
> 12779 = IT ItGate*
>  1103 = NL Surfnet*
>  8954 = NL Intouch*
> 15598 = DE QSC AG
> 28917 = RU FIORD AS
> 21416 = RU TCINET
>  1741 = FI FUNET*
>  8359 = RU MTS
> 44581 = SE AllTele
> Note that only 6939/7575/8903 are 'globally' visible, others seem to
> have very limited announcement.
> * = person who operates it is well known, all of which will be on
> ipv6-ops@ hence, BCCd them that way to get them into the loop on this
> discussion as they will be the folks disabling those boxes or not.
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list