6to4 status (again)

[Cameron Byrne]

Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Mar 1, 2013 7:29 AM, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> And now, with the 100.64.0.0/10 being deployed, I wonder how many CPE
will believe that have a public IPv4 address and start behaving as a 6to4
relay...
>
>
>
> Beside looking at the CGN logs, I wonder how we could measure those
really fake 6to4 addresses (hummm I will modify my fake BitTorrent client
to see how many of those addresses are ‘used’)
>
>

It is cgn bcp to null route the 6to4 relay. This helps eliminate bad nat
state associated with traffic that will never work.

CB
>
> -éric
>
>
>
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+evyncke=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:
ipv6-ops-bounces+evyncke=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: vendredi 1 mars 2013 07:03
> To: Brzozowski, John Jason
> Cc: Ole Troan; IPv6 Ops list; Ignatios Souvatzis
>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 status (again)
>
>
>
> On 1 Mar 2013, at 14:46, "Brzozowski, John Jason" <jjmb at jjmb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh btw not everyone will turn their relays off. Someone will try to be a
hero. :)
>
> In the early days the hero was SWITCH. But I refer you to Batman on the
topic of heroes :)
>
>
>
> Anyway, it would be great to get a list of, as Brian puts it, 'legacy'
equipment that is doing this, or of specific applications that may be doing
so (e.g. maybe P2P on certain platforms). Any intel from John or elsewhere
would be really interesting.
>
>
>
> I know a significant number of Apple Airport Extremes were 'guilty' a few
years ago, but updates were made available for that. Whether those were
applied automatically or otherwise is another question.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> 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/20130301/86391da0/attachment.htm>