Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
Tim Chown <tjc@...
2014-11-18 15:10:28 GMT
On 18 Nov 2014, at 13:28, Gert Doering <gert@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 08:20:18AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>> On 11/18/2014 05:52 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:04:50AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>>>> Also, 6to4 hasn't hurt more people than it helped.
>>> Now *that* is a very bold statement, which (for the anycast relay 6to4)
>>> really contradicts existing measurements. But of course with an
>>> adequate definition of "hurt" and "help", anything can be true.
>> It doesn't contradict existing measurements, just how those measurements
>> are interpreted. If you interpret those measurements according to an
>> assumption that the network is in all respects functioning correctly
>> except for 6to4, you'll conclude that 6to4 is the problem. But that's
>> not a valid premise, as we know that the network is not functioning
>> correctly in a great many respects.
> The measurements quite clearly demonstrate that anycasted 6to4 works
> *less* well than native IPv4. This is not assuming IPv4 works 100%.
>>> But I'm sure you know that quite well, and the draft authors already
>>> agreed to not deprecate your RFC, so I wonder what you are argueing for?
>> Truth. Or is truth out-of-scope?
>> More precisely: I accept that as a practical matter, 6to4 is doomed