<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Do not advertise anything more specific
than 2002::/16, it is specific in the RFC that this is not allowed to prevent
BGP table bloat. You either advertise 2002::/16 or nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>6to4 is a transition mechanism, we don’t
want the ipv6 bgp table becoming twice the size with hosts advertising both
their IPv6 allocation and any 6to4 addresses from their IPv4 allocations.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Steven<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
ipv6-ops-bounces+stevel=dedicatedservers.net.au@lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+stevel=dedicatedservers.net.au@lists.cluenet.de]
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Erik Kline<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, 15 May 2009 3:20 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Kevin Loch<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Question about 6to4</span></font><span
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2009/5/14 Kevin Loch <<a href="mailto:kloch@kl.net">kloch@kl.net</a>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Steve Wilcox wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thats one of the downsides with 6to4 - the packet may go in the wrong
direction in v6 before passing through the relay and then heading in the
opposite direction to find the v4 endpoint.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This is why it is best for both ends to be as close to a relay as<br>
possible. Route efficiency should be vastly better for the
"real"<br>
endpoint IPs than for the few public relays that will likely involve a<br>
significant detour.<br>
<br>
I can't recommend the proliferation of public relays as they<br>
cause more problems than they solve. Private relays are another<br>
story as they help mitigate the problems of the anycast relays. If<br>
every service provider ran private 6to4 relays for their customers<br>
it would be a Good Thing.<br>
<font color="#888888"><span style='color:#888888'><br>
- Kevin</span></font><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
The problem is that only addresses half the flow. You've succeeded in
helping your customers get their packets onto the IPv6 Internet efficiently
(yay!). But to get them back 1 of 2 things needs to happen:<br>
<br>
(1) Every content provider/destination needs to have good,
and preferably local, access to a 2002::/16 return device so it can re-encap
the packets and send them to their IPv4 origin. Otherwise they go off into
wherever 2002:/16 happens to point at that time.<br>
<br>
Obviously, this doesn't scale so well.<br>
<br>
(2) You attempt to advertise your own IPv4 networks under
2002::/16, thereby adding portions of the IPv4 routing table into IPv6
(assuming you could even get anything longer than a /32 past everyone's
filters).<br>
<br>
This also doesn't scale.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately Lorenzo's latest presentation from RIPE 58 isn't up, but in it he
showed how we see roughly ~100msec extra latency with the various relay
mechanisms like 6to4 and Teredo over native and static tunnel methods.<br>
<br>
Personally, I'm a fan of 6rd. That's what works for <a
href="http://free.fr">free.fr</a>. That, or just go native.<br>
<br>
2c,<br>
-Erik<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>