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