[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

[Mark Townsley]

On 10/14/10 11:23 AM, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> If ARIN really wanted to take a step forward towards helping the
>> quality
>> of IPv6 deployment on the Internet via deprecation of IPv6 space, it
>> would start efforts to see 2002::/16 deprecated. First things first.
> It is none of ARIN's business. That particular allocation was made by
> the IETF/IANA and is outside of ARIN's control.
My comment above was in response to the suggestion that ARIN "should
make strong efforts to communicate and preserve the notion that
[RFC5969] is a transitional and therefore temporary solution".
Certainly, if ARIN should "communicate" that RFC 5969 is bad, it should
do the same for RFC 3056 and 3068.

On 10/13/10 11:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't think we should deprecate 6to4 any faster than we should
> deprecate 6rd. In reality, they share pretty much the same level of
> problems and ugliness.
That's not what observable data suggests. Broken 6to4 has a measurable
impact on a broken IPv6 connectivity, and one of the reasons some
content providers are very hesitant to offer AAAAs 6to4 hosts. That's
not the case with 6rd. The technology is similar, but how it is deployed
and operated is very different.

See:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels-01

- Mark