On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:24:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:15:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > If my friend Joe, down the street on the Cable Network and I are both > > doing IPv6, and we both have tunnels, then our traffic, which should > > travel literally 10s of meters, will travel 100s of km instead. > > > > If we were both using 6to4, we would, as you say, automatically tunnel > > between us. > > > > The reason to still have the tunnel, is just what you said: so that we > > can talk to 2001::/16 space. > > Indeed. The only downside of 6to4 is that your subnet prefix changes > with your public v4 address. If you don't have a static v4 address, then > it'll be a bit less interesting to do, IMHO.
I suppose that depends on your application. With a proper radvd setup, your network ought to withstand IP address changes. Of course, long-standing TCP connections would fail. > Of course, by properly setting up mobile IPv6 extensions, you could > sidestep this issue and get the best of both worlds; but since mobile > IPv6 requires a kernel patch and (IIUC) a working IPsec setup, this is > too much of a PITA to set up currently, I think. Indeed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
