>> Michael Thomas wrote: >> There is some appeal to 6to4 and 1918... it keeps >> the problem within the cesspool of current usage >> and doesn't try to rationalize it any further. >> A maze of twisty addresses, all alike...
> Tim Chown wrote: > But as Pekka says, won't 6to4 interfaces fail to > deliver to 2002:<RFC1918> if the network is IPv6 only, > or doesn't use IPv4 private IPs? I don't see why. 6to4 addresses are supposed to be completely routable within a site until they reach the 6to4 gateway typically placed at the edge. With that one IPv4 address which is the gateway, you get a /48 6to4 prefix which does indeed includes 16 bits for local subnet topology. Looking at my own network, if I wanted to use 6to4 as the internal private scheme, I just have to delete the following on the edge router: | interface Tunnel6 | description for ipv6 6to4 tunnels | ipv6 address 2002:D1E9:7E41::1/64 | ipv6 traffic-filter IPV6-ACL-OUTSIDE-IN in | tunnel source Ethernet0/0 | tunnel mode ipv6ip 6to4 | tunnel path-mtu-discovery and also delete | ipv6 route 2002::/16 Tunnel6 And the 2002: internal routing still works with whatever IGP I choose (I have not tried with IS-IS). Voil�. On the host side, make sure that they pick the RA announcing the 6to4 prefix. Besides, if one does not need a prefix as short as a /24, here's another good candidate for hijacking: 2001:0DB8::/32. I guess it makes the documentation easy to write :-) Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
