Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Francis Dupont wrote: > > > => be serious, autotunnels are phased out, configured tunnels and 6to4 > > > are mutually exclusive... > > > > mutually exclusive? I don't think so. > > > > => if you have a configured tunnel you can use native addresses so > > you don't need a 6to4 router. They are mutually exclusive in practice > > site-locals (or even 6to4 /64's, for site-internal tunneling) could used > for configured tunneling in the presence of 6to4 :-). > > Relays are a difficult issue which IMO much less understandable.
Yes, 6to4 relays are subversive; as I've said, I'm sure we'll end up with ACLs for relays or at least blacklisted relays. > > The issue is more about mutual exclusivity of autotunnel and 6to4, on > which I don't agree with your view.. But at least one of the addresses is 0/96 in the case of an automatic tunnel packet and 2002/16 in the case of a 6to4 packet. Doesn't seem to hard to distinguish. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
