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 <me@cynthia.re> 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 <db-wg@ripe.net> 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