Am Monday 06 June 2011 schrieb mir Jeroen Massar: > On 2011-Jun-06 15:55, Oliver Schad wrote: > > Am Monday 06 June 2011 schrieb mir Jeroen Massar: > >> The only thing where it might not be compatible is the user > >> interface for making it easy to configure them. > > > > While I agree to your point of view that 6rd and 6to4 are very close > > to each other and it shoudln't take much time to implement all > > necessary changes in user land and kernel it is still not compatible > > because you have to set the prefix. > > > > So if you look for a CPE or whatever which supports 6to4 you can't > > conclude that it supports 6rd. That is what I mean. Remember, the OP > > was looking for boxes which supports 6rd and in this context he > > asked for 6to4. > > > > And the answer is no, it isn't true, that support for 6to4 means > > support for 6rd. > > I did not state that, I did state that if you can configure a static > protocol-41 tunnel, you can also configure a 6to4 and a 6rd one, just > that you will have to do the prefix calculation yourself and not the > easy way in the UI.
Yes that's true. But you can implement 6to4 without the possibility to support 6rd. The implementation can be compatible but it's not a must. So maybe we have to different point of views what the term compatible means. Regards Oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
