On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:02:26AM -0400, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>It's relevant unless you eliminate 6to4 and any other scheme that
>generates portable v6 address space from v4 space. 6to4 is actually
>rather interesting in that it has the potential to overtake "native"
>v6 addressing (especially considering Microsoft's treatment of 6to4
>as a first-class citizen). Once 6to4 has served its purpose of
>jump-starting IPv6 deployment and the time comes to kill it off in
>favor of native aggregated addressing, the task may be more difficult
>than was anticipated. If the bulk of users are on the 6to4 side,
>simply severing ties to the native backbone won't do the trick since
>that would hurt the native users more than the 6to4 users. It would
>instead require action on the v4 backbone to block the encapsulated
>6to4 traffic, and that might raise some eyebrows.
Simply shutting down the 6to4 translators would have a similar
effect. If a large amount of IPv6 traffic were going over a few
6to4 translators you'd probably see them get shut down for bandwidth
reasons anyway.
--
David Terrell | "Anyone want to start a fund for students
Nebcorp Prime Minister | that vow not to work at MS?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Libor Michalek
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
