6to4 status (again)

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 26/02/2013 06:27, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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?

Figure out how widely the route to 192.88.99.1 is advertised,
which will tell you who is able to use the relay. It is strongly
in a relay operator's interest to limit the advertisement of
that route to networks that are welcome to use the relay.

No different from any other anycast service that you offer.

>From RFC6343:

>    1.  The IPv4 prefix 192.88.99.0/24 must be announced only towards
>        client IPv4 networks whose outbound 6to4 packets will be
>        accepted.

   Brian