6to4 status (again)

[Brzozowski, John Jason]

Oh btw not everyone will turn their relays off. Someone will try to be a
hero. :)
On Mar 1, 2013 8:20 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Ole Troan <ot at cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> > Ole we actually have experience that tells us it would be bad if we
>> turned our relays.  Some streaming service experience is already not
>> optimal over 6to4 using our relays largely related to the protocol not the
>> relays themselves.  Turning ours down would result in the use of a single
>> 6to4 relay on someone else's network.  Further this relay is hosted by a
>> university.  For now we think it makes more sense to keep our running and
>> encourage client side disablement until there is ~0 bits over 6to4.
>>
>> yep, I understand the choice and what bind you're in.
>> my hope was that everyone, including the university would stop their 6to4
>> public relays.
>>
>
> Well that university should quickly spot the 'DoS' that would suddenly hit
> it, and also turn the relay service off.
>
> The whole turn-off could ripple through the net in a couple of weeks, with
> luck :)
>
> The question really is how many systems are using 6to4 by choice? If it's
> an issue with address selection where native IPv4 and 6to4 exist, then that
> should be fixed, else the relays will always be needed.
>
> The geeks who want IPv6 can surely use tunnel brokers.
>
> Tim
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20130301/211541b3/attachment.htm>