On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf