I certainly wasn't advocating it. Just pointing out how futile it is.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/5/14 Steven Lisson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stevel@dedicatedservers.net.au">stevel@dedicatedservers.net.au</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="blue" lang="EN-AU">
<div>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Hi,</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Do not advertise anything more specific
than 2002::/16, it is specific in the RFC that this is not allowed to prevent
BGP table bloat. You either advertise 2002::/16 or nothing.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">6to4 is a transition mechanism, we don’t
want the ipv6 bgp table becoming twice the size with hosts advertising both
their IPv6 allocation and any 6to4 addresses from their IPv4 allocations.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Regards,</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Steven</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;" align="center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%">
</span></font></div>
<p><b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">From:</span></font></b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma;" lang="EN-US">
ipv6-ops-bounces+stevel=<a href="http://dedicatedservers.net.au" target="_blank">dedicatedservers.net.au</a>@<a href="http://lists.cluenet.de" target="_blank">lists.cluenet.de</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces%2Bstevel" target="_blank">ipv6-ops-bounces+stevel</a>=<a href="http://dedicatedservers.net.au" target="_blank">dedicatedservers.net.au</a>@<a href="http://lists.cluenet.de" target="_blank">lists.cluenet.de</a>]
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">On Behalf Of </span></b>Erik Kline<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, 15 May 2009 3:20 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Kevin Loch<div class="im"><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> <a href="mailto:ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de" target="_blank">ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: Question about 6to4</div></span></font><span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
</div>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">2009/5/14 Kevin Loch <<a href="mailto:kloch@kl.net" target="_blank">kloch@kl.net</a>></span></font></p><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Steve Wilcox wrote:</span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Thats one of the downsides with 6to4 - the packet may go in the wrong
direction in v6 before passing through the relay and then heading in the
opposite direction to find the v4 endpoint.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This is why it is best for both ends to be as close to a relay as<br>
possible. Route efficiency should be vastly better for the
"real"<br>
endpoint IPs than for the few public relays that will likely involve a<br>
significant detour.<br>
<br>
I can't recommend the proliferation of public relays as they<br>
cause more problems than they solve. Private relays are another<br>
story as they help mitigate the problems of the anycast relays. If<br>
every service provider ran private 6to4 relays for their customers<br>
it would be a Good Thing.<br>
<font color="#888888"><span style="color: rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>
- Kevin</span></font></span></font></p>
</div></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
The problem is that only addresses half the flow. You've succeeded in
helping your customers get their packets onto the IPv6 Internet efficiently
(yay!). But to get them back 1 of 2 things needs to happen:<br>
<br>
(1) Every content provider/destination needs to have good,
and preferably local, access to a 2002::/16 return device so it can re-encap
the packets and send them to their IPv4 origin. Otherwise they go off into
wherever 2002:/16 happens to point at that time.<br>
<br>
Obviously, this doesn't scale so well.<br>
<br>
(2) You attempt to advertise your own IPv4 networks under
2002::/16, thereby adding portions of the IPv4 routing table into IPv6
(assuming you could even get anything longer than a /32 past everyone's
filters).<br>
<br>
This also doesn't scale.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately Lorenzo's latest presentation from RIPE 58 isn't up, but in it he
showed how we see roughly ~100msec extra latency with the various relay
mechanisms like 6to4 and Teredo over native and static tunnel methods.<br>
<br>
Personally, I'm a fan of 6rd. That's what works for <a href="http://free.fr" target="_blank">free.fr</a>. That, or just go native.<br>
<br>
2c,<br>
-Erik</span></font></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>