David Terrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|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.
Similar to what? Shutting down the public translators (I assume you mean
the routers that have both a 6to4 address and a native v6 address) is exactly
severing the tie between the 6to4 space and the native backbone. If most of
the users are on the 6to4 side, this is not much of a threat (to the 6to4
users anyway). Communications between two 6to4 nodes does not require any
public translator, and you won't be able to shut down the private translators
within sites. As I said, you would have to block the encapsulated v6 traffic
on the v4 backbone, and even that might become tricky if the 6to4 users band
together and adopt some sort of encryption...
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
