>> Michel Py wrote: >> Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT >> have any 6to4 pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
> Pekka Savola wrote: > There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please > correct me if I'm wrong. Hosts indeed have 6to4 pseudo-interfaces. > Brian Carpenter wrote: > I'm confused. When one is inside the border at which an RFC > 3056 router is placed, 6to4 addresses are exactly like any > other native IPv6 address. No host inside that border should > have a 6to4 pseudo-interface. Exactly. So the requirements for a site to use 2002:0A00::/24 as a "private" address are no different than those for 6to4 site to use the border router's v4 address as the 6to4 address. In other words, a site that would want to use 2002:0A00::/24 as a private addressing scheme is just like any regular 6to4 site except that it does not have the 6to4 gateway. >> No host inside that border should have a 6to4 >> pseudo-interface. > But in reality, they do. Some implementations even > enable it automatically. Again, this is my very point: using 2002:0A00::/24 as a "private" address will _enforce_ the need to disable these interfaces (because if they're enabled they blackhole the traffic and nothing works), which is a feature not a bug for a private network. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
