Subject: [v6ops] 6to4 - for the record

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:48:59 -0700

There has been a discussion on [email-masked] regarding the 6to4 discussion. I'm forwarding thread as of this morning "for the record". Hopefully, other operators commenting in that forum will post to v6ops@, although I'm not holding my breath :-(

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 1, 2011 8:02:58 AM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 	Given the talk of moving 6to4 in the IETF to historic, I was told that it may be a good idea to share some stats of what one public 6to4 relay in Canada is doing.  Originally this page was meant to get the institutions listed moving with IPv6 adoption, rather than languishing with tunnels and inviting (erroneous) criticism over IPv6.
> 
> 		http://stats.ottix.net/ipv6/
> 
> 	Does anyone else have public web pages of 6to4 stats that can be shared?  Data as well?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> wfms
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 10:10:56 AM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> William F Maton Sotomayor writes:
>> 	Given the talk of moving 6to4 in the IETF to historic, I was
>> told that it may be a good idea to share some stats of what one public
>> 6to4 relay in Canada is doing.  Originally this page was meant to get
>> the institutions listed moving with IPv6 adoption, rather than
>> languishing with tunnels and inviting (erroneous) criticism over IPv6.
> 
>> 		http://stats.ottix.net/ipv6/
> 
> very nice, thanks!
> 
>> 	Does anyone else have public web pages of 6to4 stats that can be
>> shared?  Data as well?
> 
> We have simple Cricket graphs for the public 6to4 relay in AS559, but
> unfortunately they aren't reachable from the general Internet.  I'm
> sending a snapshot.
> 
> 
> At the moment, most of the traffic seems to be peer-to-peer file
> sharing.  This type of application can probably benefit from the
> additional paths provided by 6to4 relaying.
> -- 
> Simon.
Begin forwarded message:

> From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 1:38:52 PM PDT
> To: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Simon Leinen wrote:
> 
>> William F Maton Sotomayor writes:
>>> 	Given the talk of moving 6to4 in the IETF to historic, I was
>>> told that it may be a good idea to share some stats of what one public
>>> 6to4 relay in Canada is doing.  Originally this page was meant to get
>>> the institutions listed moving with IPv6 adoption, rather than
>>> languishing with tunnels and inviting (erroneous) criticism over IPv6.
>> 
>>> 		http://stats.ottix.net/ipv6/
>> 
>> very nice, thanks!
> 
> Thanks SImon and for the grpahs as well.  I have data stretching further back for the tunnel interface itself which I've been thinking bout how to make more public, aside from the graph there now.  Since I'm now responding to this, I suppose I'll end-up finding a way to do it anyways.
> 
> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF at the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead throwing the thing away (whatever that degree may be).  It's worked for us and for the other R&E networks thus far so I'd hate to see the OttIX one go.
> 
> wfms
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 1:48:54 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On 17/04/2011 21:38, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
>> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF at
>> the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead
>> throwing the thing away (whatever that degree may be).
> 
> It's not a pity, really.  The protocol is terminally broken because it cannot work around return-path blackholing.
> 
> We need to move beyond 6to4.  Static tunnels work, as does teredo.
> 
> Nick
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 1:59:18 PM PDT
> To: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
> 
>> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF at the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead throwing the thing away (whatever that degree may be).  It's worked for us and for the other R&E networks thus far so I'd hate to see the OttIX one go.
> 
> The proponents for deprecating 6to4 doesn't want to kill 6to4, just want to have vendors stop enabling it by default.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]
Begin forwarded message:

> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 2:00:37 PM PDT
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> It will be important that you then voice up your opinion in v6ops.
> 
> I'm just having this discussion because they are trying to kill it. Yes,
> the argument is "is not killing it, but making it off by default", but
> this is not what the vendors will read.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Simon Leinen wrote:
>> 
>>> William F Maton Sotomayor writes:
>>>> 	Given the talk of moving 6to4 in the IETF to historic, I was
>>>> told that it may be a good idea to share some stats of what one public
>>>> 6to4 relay in Canada is doing.  Originally this page was meant to get
>>>> the institutions listed moving with IPv6 adoption, rather than
>>>> languishing with tunnels and inviting (erroneous) criticism over IPv6.
>>> 
>>>> 		http://stats.ottix.net/ipv6/
>>> 
>>> very nice, thanks!
>> 
>> Thanks SImon and for the grpahs as well.  I have data stretching further
>> back for the tunnel interface itself which I've been thinking bout how to
>> make more public, aside from the graph there now.  Since I'm now
>> responding to this, I suppose I'll end-up finding a way to do it anyways.
>> 
>> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF at
>> the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead throwing
>> the thing away (whatever that degree may be).  It's worked for us and for
>> the other R&E networks thus far so I'd hate to see the OttIX one go.
>> 
>> wfms
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 2:48:58 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>, IPv6 operators forum <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> 
> On Apr 17, 2011, at 1:38 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
> 
>> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF at the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead throwing the thing away (whatever that degree may be).  It's worked for us and for the other R&E networks thus far so I'd hate to see the OttIX one go.
> 
> There are actually two things under discussion in the IETF. Brian Carpenter wrote a document on how to fix 6to4, and Ole Troan wrote a document suggesting that RFCs 3068 and 3056 be "off by default".
> 
> I think it's at least fair to point out what "deprecate" or "move to historic" means in the IETF environment. When the Internet moved from classful addressing to CIDR in the early 1990's, the IESG "deprecated" RIPv1, moving it to "historic". We (I include myself as I was on the IESG at the time) had no expectation that this would mean people would stop using RIP, or that manufacturers would change their products. It meant that RIPv1 didn't address the needs of the growing Internet, and was not something the IETF found useful to continue enhancing. RIPv2 came along a couple of years later, and included several important changes - it moved from broadcast to multicast, it carried a prefix as opposed to a classful address, and it dropped the aggregation algorithms RIPv1 used across classful address boundaries.
> 
> In the IETF, we have a fair bit of evidence that 6to4 isn't all its cracked up to be; take a look at Geoff Huston's discussion, in the IETF-80 proceedings. Basically, he's looking at darknet data, and finds 6to4 and Teredo traffic there, which says that at best the protocols send traffic to places its doesn't intend, and at worst they are components of or carriers of attacks of various kinds.
> 
> What I understand the two drafts to be saying is
> a) if someone is using 6to4, they should be doing so intentionally, not by accident (troan)
> b) They should do so in ways that work (carpenter)
> c) As IPv6 deploys in native space, transition technologies in general and 6to4 in specific should atrophy.
> 
> Commentary from the operator community would be interesting and helpful in the IETF discussion.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory
>  "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment", Brian Carpenter, 31-Mar-11
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
>  "Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to
>  Historic status", Ole Troan, 5-Apr-11
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Martin Millnert <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 5:26:06 PM PDT
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 22:59 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> The proponents for deprecating 6to4 doesn't want to kill 6to4, just want 
>> to have vendors stop enabling it by default.
> 
> Mikael, if that is the case, I suggest that they double- or triple-check
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg08240.html before
> any mistakes are made wrt. publishing the draft as-is.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 5:31:09 PM PDT
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On 04/17/2011 13:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
>> 
>>> It's a pity that 6to4 deprecation is being discussed within the IETF
>>> at the moment, because I would like to see the issues fixed instead
>>> throwing the thing away (whatever that degree may be). It's worked for
>>> us and for the other R&E networks thus far so I'd hate to see the
>>> OttIX one go.
>> 
>> The proponents for deprecating 6to4 doesn't want to kill 6to4, just want
>> to have vendors stop enabling it by default.
> 
> In some cases that's true, however some (including me) want to kill it outright. Unfortunately that's not the opinion of even a substantial minority of the WG however.
> 
> 
> Doug
> 
> -- 
> 
> 	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
> 			-- OK Go
> 
> 	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
> 	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 11:33:01 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> Jordi,
> 
>> It will be important that you then voice up your opinion in v6ops.
>> 
>> I'm just having this discussion because they are trying to kill it. Yes,
>> the argument is "is not killing it, but making it off by default", but
>> this is not what the vendors will read.
> 
> "they"? I thought I saw you in Prague? ;-)
> 
> at the IETF80 we discussed a two pronged approach:
> - make 6to4 historic. provide a statement that can be referenced in a standards document that 6to4 should be off by default.
> - 6to4 advisory. as it will take some time before CPEs and host implementations are upgraded, encourage operators to
>   do what little is possible to improve 6to4.
> 
> are you arguing that I should go back to our consumer products (Linksys) people and ask them to enable 6to4 by default again?
> I'm not pretending to speak for all vendors (not even the one I'm working for), but if you are trying to create a scare that vendors will remove 6to4 from their code base, then a couple of data points is that NAT-PT and Automatic tunnels (from rfc1933) are still in IOS.
> 
> as there is considerable statistics from people like Geoff, Tore, Emile, showing how badly 6to4 performs, I think for you to argue against making it historic, you should show that they are wrong... or show us how it can be fixed.
> 
> please read rfc5218. a protocol that requires every other remote network in the Internet to upgrade or change their behaviour has little chance to succeed.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 11:37:38 PM PDT
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> Hi Ole,
> 
> If the problem is filtering, as expressed by Geoff, then we should kill
> any protocol that can be filtered ?
> 
> I'm not going to repeat myself here, and I'm not the only one objecting to
> this document in v6ops, so there is no consensus.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:33:01 +0200
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
>> Jordi,
>> 
>>> It will be important that you then voice up your opinion in v6ops.
>>> 
>>> I'm just having this discussion because they are trying to kill it. Yes,
>>> the argument is "is not killing it, but making it off by default", but
>>> this is not what the vendors will read.
>> 
>> "they"? I thought I saw you in Prague? ;-)
>> 
>> at the IETF80 we discussed a two pronged approach:
>> - make 6to4 historic. provide a statement that can be referenced in a
>> standards document that 6to4 should be off by default.
>> - 6to4 advisory. as it will take some time before CPEs and host
>> implementations are upgraded, encourage operators to
>>  do what little is possible to improve 6to4.
>> 
>> are you arguing that I should go back to our consumer products (Linksys)
>> people and ask them to enable 6to4 by default again?
>> I'm not pretending to speak for all vendors (not even the one I'm working
>> for), but if you are trying to create a scare that vendors will remove
>> 6to4 from their code base, then a couple of data points is that NAT-PT
>> and Automatic tunnels (from rfc1933) are still in IOS.
>> 
>> as there is considerable statistics from people like Geoff, Tore, Emile,
>> showing how badly 6to4 performs, I think for you to argue against making
>> it historic, you should show that they are wrong... or show us how it can
>> be fixed.
>> 
>> please read rfc5218. a protocol that requires every other remote network
>> in the Internet to upgrade or change their behaviour has little chance to
>> succeed.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 17, 2011 11:48:10 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> Jordi,
> 
>> If the problem is filtering, as expressed by Geoff, then we should kill
>> any protocol that can be filtered ?
> 
> filters are just one among many problems.
> please read http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00
> 
> bad performance, high latency, packet drops and blackholes unrelated to filtering are the ones I've seen and experienced.
> 
>> I'm not going to repeat myself here, and I'm not the only one objecting to
>> this document in v6ops, so there is no consensus.
> 
> apart from "I disagree", it be fruitful if you could provide arguments.
> 
> in the meantime I suggest you sit yourself behind a Linksys WRT610N (with current firmware - 1) and a Mac OSX <=10.6.4 machine use the google whitelisted DNS server from HE and enjoy 'the web' for a while. even better enable, make sure you are behind a NAT and enable 6to4 locally on the OSX box... ;-)
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
Begin forwarded message:

> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 12:02:20 AM PDT
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> As said in v6ops, I have been traveling heavily the last 10 years, and
> using an average of 30 networks per year and have 6to4 enabled by default
> in my Mac (previously it was and XP for the first 5 years), and my failure
> rate is below 1%.
> 
> Statistically it is impossible that it just good luck for me !
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:48:10 +0200
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
>> Jordi,
>> 
>>> If the problem is filtering, as expressed by Geoff, then we should kill
>>> any protocol that can be filtered ?
>> 
>> filters are just one among many problems.
>> please read http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00
>> 
>> bad performance, high latency, packet drops and blackholes unrelated to
>> filtering are the ones I've seen and experienced.
>> 
>>> I'm not going to repeat myself here, and I'm not the only one objecting
>>> to
>>> this document in v6ops, so there is no consensus.
>> 
>> apart from "I disagree", it be fruitful if you could provide arguments.
>> 
>> in the meantime I suggest you sit yourself behind a Linksys WRT610N (with
>> current firmware - 1) and a Mac OSX <=10.6.4 machine use the google
>> whitelisted DNS server from HE and enjoy 'the web' for a while. even
>> better enable, make sure you are behind a NAT and enable 6to4 locally on
>> the OSX box... ;-)
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 12:31:48 AM PDT
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> I'm not going to repeat myself here, and I'm not the only one objecting to this document in v6ops, so there is no consensus.
> 
> If 20 people support it and 3 object, that is consensus.
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus>
> 
> "Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures)."
> 
> -- Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 3:36:15 AM PDT
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:37:38AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> If the problem is filtering, as expressed by Geoff, then we should kill
>> any protocol that can be filtered ?
> 
> This argument is ridiculous, and completely missing the point.
> 
> (BTW: IETF uses *rough* consensus - that means "not everybody has to agree")
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 3:38:27 AM PDT
> To: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On 18/04/2011 01:31, Doug Barton wrote:
>> In some cases that's true, however some (including me) want to kill it
>> outright. Unfortunately that's not the opinion of even a substantial
>> minority of the WG however.
> 
> I think most people want it gone.  Problem is, it's difficult to remove and it will take a long, long time before it disappears completely.  The approach that's most likely to get widespread support is:
> 
> 1. make it not be on by default
> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
> 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic deals with steps 1-3.
> 
> Nick
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 3:41:56 AM PDT
> To: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:38:27AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 1. make it not be on by default
>> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
>> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
>> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
>> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
>> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
> 
> Just for the record: support.
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- Operator
> -- 
> did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: April 18, 2011 3:49:20 AM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
>>> 1. make it not be on by default
>>> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
>>> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
>>> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
>>> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
>>> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
>> 
>> Just for the record: support.
> 
> And support here too from another operator.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email-masked]
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tore Anderson <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 3:57:15 AM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> * [email-masked]
> 
>>>> 1. make it not be on by default
>>>> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
>>>> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
>>>> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
>>>> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
>>>> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
>>> 
>>> Just for the record: support.
>> 
>> And support here too from another operator.
> 
> It would be great if all of you could voice your support on the IETF
> v6ops list too, so that I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic can proceed
> towards publication. :-)
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 4:02:58 AM PDT
> To: IPv6 operators forum <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> 
> On 18 Apr 2011, at 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:38:27AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> 1. make it not be on by default
>>> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
>>> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
>>> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
>>> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
>>> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
>> 
>> Just for the record: support.
>> 
>> Gert Doering
>>       -- Operator
> 
> Progressing RFC3484-bis also alongside #3 helps a lot.   It's that lack of RFC3484 support in past versions of MacOS X that's caused bigger issues for Mac users.
> 
> Somewhere in there there should also be a 'don't use 6to4 for Internet connection sharing', which causes a lot of the problems.
> 
> Tim
> 
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 4:07:47 AM PDT
> To: IPv6 operators forum <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> 
> On 18 Apr 2011, at 01:26, Martin Millnert wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 22:59 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> The proponents for deprecating 6to4 doesn't want to kill 6to4, just want 
>>> to have vendors stop enabling it by default.
>> 
>> Mikael, if that is the case, I suggest that they double- or triple-check
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg08240.html before
>> any mistakes are made wrt. publishing the draft as-is.
> 
> Well, Apple has chosen to not implement various other IPv6 features too, which has been frustrating, e.g. RFC3484, DHCPv6, MLDv2.    
> 
> It's of course up to Apple what they do implement, so they can choose to ignore the 6to4 IETF outputs.   As a user of Apple products, I would personally prefer them to be a little more advanced in their IPv6 support.   There are some signs of this in Lion.
> 
> As a data point, we're an academic site and <2% of our web traffic from outside is IPv6 transport, and of that <1% is successful 6to4.   So loss of 6to4 hits 0.02% of our customers.
> 
> Tim
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Martin Millnert <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 18, 2011 6:54:29 AM PDT
> To: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 6to4 stats found, are there other places?
> 
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:38 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> 1. make it not be on by default
>> 2. make noise about it being A Bad Thing
>> 3. deprioritise 2002::/16 addresses in resolver libs
>> 4. then make the option hard to find on operating systems / CPEs
>> 5. then remove the option on operating systems
>> 6. then slowly decommission 6to4 relays over many years
> 
> +1
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
>