I agree with Brian. If a SP wants to provide a managed 6to4 service, 6rd is the way to go. SPs shouldn't try to solve the broken 6to4 problem by injecting v4 information to the global v6 routing table.
Yiu On 5/28/10 6:29 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> 6to4 prefixes more specific than 2002::/16 are allowed to be >> propagated in native IPv6 routing, as long as the more specific >> matchs exactly the mapped most aggregated IPv4 route originated by >> the same AS. > > This is a really, really bad idea, for the reason given in RFC3056: > > 6to4 prefixes more specific than 2002::/16 must not be propagated > in native IPv6 routing, to prevent pollution of the IPv6 routing > table by elements of the IPv4 routing table. > > That is a much more important issue than the fact that 6to4 doesn't work > well for users whose ISPs haven't deployed a 6to4 relay (and announced > 2002::/16 > locally). ISPs do need to pay attention to filtering rules for 2002::/16 > announcements. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
