<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/26/2013 01:23 AM, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKD1Yr0Vr3SjrVY4pZq+nUpgbe_znCeArgZogCcgMHKzBt=96Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Keith Moore <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:moore@network-heretics.com" target="_blank">moore@network-heretics.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">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.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
So a recommendation to drop 6to4 relays would, at the
present time, be a very harmful recommendation.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sure, but as far as I can see, the only alternatives
are:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Upgrade the box with 10G interfaces, incurring
substantial cost.<br>
</li>
<li>Drop the packets, degrading service quality.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<div>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?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What I find myself thinking is that if you're not willing to spend
more money on faster interfaces to the relays (which I see as a
purely business decision, similar to whether to procure faster links
to a peer), then one alternative to shutting down the relay entirely
might be to advertise the route to that relay less favorably, so
that it doesn't look like a good route to as many peers, thus
reducing the load that way.<br>
<br>
Hopefully more access providers will take up the slack so as to
provide better 6to4 service for their customers, at least until
those providers provide native v6 access to their customers. But I
do see 6to4 relay as a service that probably has to migrate closer
to the edge over time until there's no longer a need for it.<br>
<br>
Keith<br>
<br>
p.s. At my great distance, it does seem a bit odd for an operator to
say, in effect, "too many people are wanting to send traffic to this
prefix, therefore we need to shut down our link to it." Is that
the way operators think about prefixes in general? But I also
realize that there's nobody who speaks for 2002::/16 so there's no
way to go to them and say "you need to pay us for more bandwidth".
And I don't think that just because an operator is willing to run a
relay, that this implies that they have to spend arbitrary amounts
of money to keep it from dropping packets.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>