Dave Marquardt wrote:
> One thing this made me wonder about, though. Let's say we have your
> ABCD scenario above:
>
> A-------------B========C--------------------D
>
> C is a router. All nodes have IPv6 addresses, call them A6, B6, C6,
> and D6. B and C have IPv4 addresses, B4 and C4. Is it "legal" to
> configure a tunnel from B to D by using B4 as the local IPv4 address
> and C4 as the remote address, and configuring the local IPv6 address
> as B6 and the remote IPv6 address as D6? Packets to D would get
> encapsulated at B in an IPv4 packet with B4 as source and C4 as
> destination. When the packet reached C, it would be decapsulated.
> Since C is a router, it would forward the packet on to D. Is this
> allowed? It's confusing, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.
The confusing part is asking about the tunnel as being from B to D. The
tunnel in your example would be from B to C, with the traffic flow between B
and D. This is legal, and is the basic premise for the 6to4 router as
defined in rfc3056. While 6to4 does this with implicit tunnels, there is no
operational difference between that and a configured tunnel between routers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
