On Jun 12, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Michel Py wrote: > If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred > Solution over "tunneled", it does not hold water. To be fair, I think the argument is more that "ISP managed" IPv6 is preferred over "IPv6 tunneled by end-users through relay routers set up on an ad hoc basis". And I can't really disagree with that. I don't think there's any doubt that native > 6rd > 6to4 (where ">" is "a better way to deploy IPv6"). But you have to use whatever you can get. For ISPs that are still looking at native v6 as a target to be deployed to consumers in a few years or longer, I really wish they'd consider 6rd as an interim step. And for those rolling out LSN, I really wish they'd at least roll out 6rd along with it. That way, application developers that currently use PnP or NAT-PMP to get through NATs would have the option of using IPv6, instead of having to support yet another NAT traversal hack in their code (and supporting different NAT hacks for different customers). Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf