Connectivity issues and packet inspection

[Kevin Day]

On Jun 19, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> I continue to be surprised that comcast doesn't spray a liberal set  
> of 6to4 relay routers throughout their network, given their efforts  
> elsewhere in making v6 work. (Allowing the well-known 6to4 relay  
> router prefix to propagate doesn't sound wrong, incidentally; it's  
> surely not providing so-numbered relays closer to their customers  
> which is silly.)
>
> Assuming they have some ciscos in the packet path, this could be  
> done with less than 10 lines of config, it seems to me. I'm sure  
> there are flaming hoops of lab approval and peer review to go  
> through, but it seems to me like work that would pay for itself in  
> reduced support costs fairly quickly.
>


As someone running an "announced to the world" 6to4 relay, I'm really  
surprised at just how many large networks aren't running their own -  
even if just for their own customers.

There are so few public 6to4 relays, and quite often networks seem to  
be choosing which relay to use based on financial/political reasons  
than what's closest. I've had a few emails from people in South Africa  
that are baffled as to why their ISPs are choosing to select 6to4  
paths going to our relay in Chicago.

While it's not breaking things, it is making the v6 experience  
painfully slow for early adopters. Maybe some kind of concerted effort  
to get people to look at their routes to 192.88.99.0/24 and 2002::/16  
and evaluate if they truly are selecting the best path or not would be  
helpful.

-- Kevin