Closed danwing closed 1 month ago
Yes, I would always recommend against 6rd for an ISP given native is fairly well supported.
Agreed 6rd should be dis-recommended in 2024. Perhaps just needs a forward reference to the obsolete techniques section? (If there are other tunnel techniques which are also obsolete, I would enumerate them all and forward reference them all.)
Yes, I'll patch that forward reference in. However, book6 is reporting, not making policy... maybe the IETF should officially declare certain techniques to be deprecated?
There seems some appetite for deprecating IPv6 transition technologies when it impacts clients, for example https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-buraglio-deprecate7050. But 6rd isn't noticed or seen by clients, so I dunno if there is appetite to spend time to deprecate a transition mechanism. Something to ask v6ops in case someone wants fame (with little fortune).
If people run 6rd with public IPv4 addresses on the CPE endpoints, there might be money to be made moving towards other access technologies that are based on a native v6 network and CGN... (and selling off the IPv4 space). But changing a production network is not an easy undertaking, so might not be considered worth the effort & risk.
@cron2, agreed, but the "Obsolete techniques" section already says "Readers are advised to ignore these techniques for new deployments, and to consider removing them from existing deployments." I think every operator will follow the "not broken, don't fix" approach, as you say.
One point we could discuss is that 6rd is also listed in the 'Obsolete techniques' section. I assume that today we'd recommend an ISP to deploy native IPv6 in preference to 6rd. Thoughts welcome from @danwing and @buraglio. Anyway, thanks Dan!