On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then.
Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking tunnels has the flavor of "don't solve the problem, but rather, stamp out the solution".
Actually, this mostly happens in enterprise networks and universities. I don't see why they would want to change this compared to, say, actually deploying native IPv6.
Well if an enterprise network wants to firewall certain kinds of traffic, that's its own business. The fact that some enterprises firewall ip-over-ip tunnels is not a justification for IETF trashing one particular kind of ip tunnel.
In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs.
From where? Again, the tunnels aren't taking the variety of paths that 6to4 connections are. It's that variety that makes measurements such as Geoff's at all useful - it's what lets you at least believe that the measurements made at a few points are representative of the whole.
From the same place that he ran the 6to4 measurements from?
See above. It's not a valid measurement. Or the measurement is fine, but comparisons between configured tunnels and 6to4 on the basis of such measurements are not valid.
A few months ago I was trying to set one up, but I ran out of time. I'm really busy these days, and it's nowhere nearly as easy to set up a configured tunnel as it is to set up 6to4.
Go to http://tunnelbroker.net/ . I'm willing to bet that it will take a lot less time than you have spent writing email on this thread. :-)
That's who I was using before.
Keith
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf