On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:06 PM, t.petch wrote:
>
> To quote from the draft (anyone read it?:-)
>
> " 6rd [RFC5969] utilizes the same encapsulation and base mechanism as
> 6to4, and could be viewed as a superset of 6to4 (6to4 could be
> achieved by setting the 6rd prefix to 2002::/16). However, the
> deployment model is such that 6rd can avoid the problems described
> here. In this sense, 6rd can be viewed as superseding 6to4 as
> described in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026]"
yes, but that part of the draft is false. 6to4 and 6rd have different use
cases. It's not as if I can install 6rd on my laptop and be able to talk to
IPv6 hosts.
> 6rd good; 6to4 {as described in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026]} bad.
6to4 awesome. it's those BGP advertisements for broken relay routers, and
those ISPs that filter protocol 41 that are bad.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
