6to4 status (again)

[Brzozowski, John Jason]

Eric,

Maybe this will break 6to4 sufficiently such that is lessens use even
further.

John


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:29 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’)****
>
> ** **
>
> -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/20130301/58bc78d8/attachment.htm>