I also want to add that I don't personally see any real issue with keeping the route objects for a /24 that's either going to be used for a deprecated purpose or not used at all. This is in contrast to the potential issues that could arise from removing route objects that were used.
I think the risks here are probably greater than any potential "reward". -Cynthia On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 15:17 Cynthia Revström <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the best option here would simply be to ask IANA (possibly through > the NRO) how these prefixes should be handled as I don't think we are > necessarily the correct people to answer these questions. > > -Cynthia > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 12:01 Gert Doering via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 04:21:41PM +0300, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote: >> > People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, >> > but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The >> RFCs >> > clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these >> > tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations >> > should be allowed to function for the near future for backward >> > compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route >> objects >> > too. >> >> Now, how long is "near future"? >> >> > Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be >> > affected by this change. >> >> How much traffic to you see? >> >> We run a local 6to4 relay - not announced to "the Internet" - and I >> hardly >> see any traffic anymore. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael >> Emmer >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >> >
