RE: IPv6 routing /48s

From: TJ (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 17:20:25 EST

  • Next message: Joel Jaeggli: "Re: Quagga on Xen or VMWare etc"

    Just for the record, I like my host being the degenerate case of "6to4 site
    + site router all in one".
    This makes my life much easier, as I frequently need IPv6 connectivity and
    frequently have a public IP(v4) address (EVDO, FTW).

    Having said that - what applies to me may well not be the common case.

    (Just wanted to state this in case MS is listening and was thinking about
    removing the functionality. I think the right approach is to detect the
    failure (s) when they occur, not to remove the functionality)

    /TJ

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Jack Bates [mailto:]
    >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:05 PM
    >To: Nathan Ward
    >Cc: nanog list
    >Subject: Re: IPv6 routing /48s
    >
    >Nathan Ward wrote:
    >> The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 =
    >> unfiltered/unNATed for the purposes of 6to4.
    >> Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I
    >> suppose
    >> - it's supposed to be used on routers.
    >>
    >
    >While I don't doubt that the 6to4 is broken in such circumstances, how many
    >IPv6 content providers are using 6to4 addressing and not 2001::
    >addressing? 6to4 by default on xp and vista, in my experience, is only used
    >if a) talking to another 6to4 address or b) there is no IPv4 address
    >available.
    >
    >6to4 never seemed like a viable method for content providing, though its
    use
    >at the eyeball layer is somewhat iffy given that it's primary use is for
    >other 6to4 addresses. If prefix policies are altered to use it for
    >2001:: addressing, problems start arising quickly.
    >
    >A good example is that traceroutes through my he.net tunnel using 6to4
    >source addresses do not get replies through he.net's network, presumably
    due
    >to their routers not being 6to4 aware and having no route to respond.
    >Responses pick up again after picking up a network such as NTT that is 6to4
    >aware. My 2001:: addressing works just fine the entire route.
    >
    >I'm sure there's quite a few networks that aren't 6to4 aware, hindering
    >6to4 connectivity to non-6to4 addresses.
    >
    >Jack


  • Next message: Joel Jaeggli: "Re: Quagga on Xen or VMWare etc"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD