In message <BANLkTi=GGAY2U0sX54hnv7Bz7QDgrAjZ9H+8rwhmwkjK+9ssig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , Lorenzo Colitti writes: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrot > e: > > > > That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well > > use IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to > a > > public IPv4 address. What is the advantage of using 6to4 over IPv4 that > > makes it worth suffering an 80% failure rate? > > > > > > it can communicate with hosts that have only IPv6, > > it can communicate with hosts that are stuck behind a single IPv4 address > > (if the router acts as a 6to4 gateway) without a NAT being in the way, > > it can be used to develop and test IPv6 applications without having to > > build a special-purpose network, > > it can be used to deploy applications now that already support IPv6 and so > > are in some sense future-proofed, > > it can be deployed on either a single host or a network > > ... about 80% of the time. Or 99.999% of the time once you get it setup. The problem isn't 6to4, it's *automatic* 6to4. > I would argue that cases 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 can be solved more reliably using > configured tunnels, and that case 2 is today solved more reliably, and in > more cases (e.g., when no public IPv4 address is available at the border) by > the various NAT traversal mechanisms that are implemented in applications. > But I think we're just going around in circles here. Which often times requires special software to be installed. Tunnels are a lot more hassle to setup and yes I've used both so I know. 6to4 historic is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf