Skip to main content

Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
RFC 6343

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
02 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2011-08-09
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-08-08
02 (System) RFC published
2011-07-03
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-07-01
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-07-01
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-07-01
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-07-01
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-07-01
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-07-01
02 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-07-01
02 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-01
02 Ron Bonica State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed.
2011-06-30
02 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on
  6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes.  I would like to see
  them …
[Ballot discuss]
Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on
  6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes.  I would like to see
  them incorporated into the document.  I understand the author
  has done the work and is waiting for word from the Sponsoring AD.
2011-06-30
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-06-23
02 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-06-23
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation.
2011-06-23
02 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-06-23
02 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-23
02 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-06-23
02 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this.

Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this.

Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two routers.

Section 7.2 title has a typo.
2011-06-23
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-06-23
02 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-22
02 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: Dan Wing.
2011-06-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02.txt
2011-06-22
02 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Very nice document.  Thank you.

One small question...

After reading this sentence:

  In
  practice, there are few if any deployments of …
[Ballot comment]
Very nice document.  Thank you.

One small question...

After reading this sentence:

  In
  practice, there are few if any deployments of Router 6to4 following
  these recommendations.

I wonder if the author has any insight into how many deployments of
Router 6to4 are not following the recommendations in RFC 3056?
2011-06-22
02 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-22
02 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-22
02 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-22
02 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on
  6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes.  I would like to see
  them …
[Ballot discuss]
Discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on
  6-Jun-2011 lead to proposed text changes.  I would like to see
  them incorporated into the document.  I understand the author
  has done the work and is waiting for word from the Sponsoring AD.
2011-06-22
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-06-22
02 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-21
02 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-21
02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
I do not object to the publication of this document. However:

1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how …
[Ballot comment]
I do not object to the publication of this document. However:

1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how dependent this document is on moving 6to4 to Historic in the minds of WG members. Maybe they are completely independent. But it is a concern, especially if the IETF decides to *not* move 6to4 to Historic.

2. The document says:

  Other advice applies to content providers and implementers, but this
  document does not discuss aspects that are mainly outside the scope
  of network operators...

I do wonder where that other information is going to be collected together for an overview of dealing with 6to4.
2011-06-21
02 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-21
02 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-21
02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
Very nicely written document.

I see that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic also mentions
the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain, but that's not mentioned at all
here. Should it be?
2011-06-21
02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
Very nicely written document.
2011-06-21
02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-20
02 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-17
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Barry Leiba.
2011-06-16
02 Wesley Eddy
[Ballot comment]
The document is clear and well-written.

Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a …
[Ballot comment]
The document is clear and well-written.

Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a BCP but only Informational because of the fact that 6to4 is being made Historic in parallel?

Does this update 3056/3068, or does that not matter since they're going to be Historic?
2011-06-16
02 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-16
02 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-06-16
02 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-06-10
02 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing
2011-06-10
02 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to Dan Wing
2011-06-03
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2011-06-03
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica Ballot has been issued
2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica Created "Approve" ballot
2011-06-02
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-06-02
02 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt> (Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment'
  <draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides advice to network operators about deployment
  of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4.  It
  is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers, including
  those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers.  Some
  advice to implementers is also included.  The intention of the advice
  is to minimise both user dissatisfaction and help desk calls.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-06-23
2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica Last Call was requested
2011-06-02
02 Ron Bonica State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested.
2011-06-02
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-06-02
02 (System) Last call text was added
2011-06-02
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-05-27
02 Fred Baker Sent to IESG on 6 May 2011
2011-05-27
02 Fred Baker IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2011-05-06
02 Ron Bonica Ballot writeup text changed
2011-05-05
02 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I believe that it is ready for IESG consideration.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document was presented at IETF-80 and was the subject of discussion on the mailing list both before and after. During the working group last call, 119 messages were exchanged; a number were off-topic, pertaining to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, which was in WGLC at the same time as it is on a related subject. There were minor textual updates, resolved in the -01 draft. The one real negative comment came from Pekka Savola, and was resolved on the list. A number of operators indicated that the document was "excellent" and supported it.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

It might do well to be reviewed by the operations directorate. Apart from that, I don't believe that it needs specialized review.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no such concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

I believe that we have general consensus.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

There have been no threats of an appeal. There was discussion of the applicability of the technology to specific vendor's products.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the
Internet-Drafts Checklist
and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document contains no formal grammar, and so requires no formal grammar review. It meets the checklist requirements with the exception that it refers to the IPv4 anycast address assigned to 6to4 and the 2002::/16 prefix assigned to 6to4, resulting in a number of complaints about not using the documentation prefixes. I believe that the document is clearer for having the assigned values in it.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes.

Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

No. The internet drafts that it references are all informative references, and properly so.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document provides advice to network operators about deployment
of the 6to4 technique for automatic tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4. It
is principally addressed to Internet Service Providers, including
those that do not yet support IPv6, and to Content Providers. Some
advice to implementers is also included. The intention of the advice
is to minimise both user dissatisfaction and help desk calls.

Working Group Summary

The IPv6 Operations Working Group discussed this in the first half of 2011. There is general consensus that the guidelines for improving 6to4 behavior are reasonable and helpful.

Document Quality

The document was written by the original author of 6to4. Many of the people that commented in support of it observed that it was well written and informative. There are numerous 6to4 implementations; the issue in this context is that 6to4 was intended to have operational support when designed, and has been implemented largely without that operational support. As a result, it often doesn't perform as intended. This was discussed in Geoff Huston's talk in v6ops at IETF-80.
2011-05-05
02 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-05-05
02 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-04-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt
2011-04-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00.txt