I, for one, am not interested talking about 6to4 anymore. On Jul 8, 2011 4:36 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote: >> Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to >> drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a >> correct error messages to. > > This is an awesomely bad idea. As explained in the approved advisory > document, it makes things worse for everybody (the user, the content > provider, and the unfortunate person answering calls from either of > them at the help desk). > > On the contrary - it's in everyone's interests to have the return > path working. Once a user manages to get a packet to the content > provider, everybody suffers if the return path fails. > > (However, if you are announcing a route to 2002::/16, it must lead > to a relay that will relay all 6to4 packets, with no form of ACL). > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
