Deprecating Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG)
Last updated 2014-11-13
Replaces draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Fred Baker
IESG IESG state I-D Exists (IESG: Dead)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Ron Bonica
IESG note The document shepherd is Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com).
Send notices to v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic@tools.ietf.org
v6ops WG                                                        O. Troan
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Obsoletes: 3068 (if approved)                          B. Carpenter, Ed.
Updates: 6343 (if approved)                            Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Best Current Practice                 November 13, 2014
Expires: May 17, 2015

           Deprecating Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers
                draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt

Abstract

   Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
   (6to4)" IPv6 transition mechanism defined in RFC 3056 has shown that
   the mechanism is unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the
   Internet, especially in its anycast mode.  This document requests
   that RFC 3068, "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", be made
   obsolete and moved to historic status.  It also recommends that
   future products should not support 6to4 anycast and that existing
   deployments should be reviewed.  Thus it updates the guidelines in
   RFC 6343.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Troan & Carpenter         Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Deprecating 6to4 Anycast           November 2014

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

   There would appear to be no evidence of any substantial deployment of
   the variant of 6to4 described in [RFC3056].  Its extension specified
   in "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" [RFC3068] has been
   shown to have severe practical problems when used in the Internet.
   This document requests that RFC 3068 be moved to Historic status as
   defined in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026].  It also updates the
   deployment guidelines in [RFC6343].

   6to4 was designed to help transition the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6.
   It has been a good mechanism for experimenting with IPv6, but because
   of the high failure rates seen with anycast 6to4 [HUSTON], end users
   may end up disabling IPv6 on hosts as a result, and some content
   providers have been reluctant to make content available over IPv6.

   [RFC6343] analyses the known operational issues in detail and
   describes a set of suggestions to improve 6to4 reliability, given the
   widespread presence of hosts and customer premises equipment that
   support it.  However, experience shows that operational failures have
   continued despite this advice being available.  Fortunately the
   advice to disable 6to4 by default has been widely adopted in recent
   operating systems, and the failure modes have been largely hidden
   from users by many browsers adopting the "happy eyeballs" approach
   [RFC6555].  Nevertheless, operational problems caused by 6to4 still
   occur.

   IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) [RFC5969]
   utilizes the same encapsulation and base mechanism as 6to4, and could
   be viewed as a superset of 6to4 (6to4 could be achieved by setting
   the 6rd prefix to 2002::/16).  However, the deployment model is such
   that 6rd can avoid the problems described here.  In this sense, 6rd
   can be viewed as superseding 6to4 as described in section 4.2.4 of
   [RFC2026]

   Given that native IPv6 support and reliable transition mechanisms
   such as 6rd are now becoming common, the IETF sees no evolutionary
   future for the 6to4 mechanism.

Troan & Carpenter         Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Deprecating 6to4 Anycast           November 2014

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
Show full document text