>> >> >> And b. >> >> And probably it is too much effort for something that will go away (probably sooner that we expect) with the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses for each ISP's customer (6to4 does not work with NATs, and they are here). > > It's clearly inappropriate for operators to be filtering protocol 41. Not only does this break 6to4, it also breaks other tunneling mechanisms. More generally, it's inappropriate for operators to be favoring one kind of traffic over another. Many corporate networks filter them because security concerns (I am not saying that is right or wrong, it just happens and it breaks 6to4). They won't change their mind because 6to4. > > The ISPs I've talked to tell me that they see no reason why static, public IPv4 addresses cannot continue to be given to those that request them, indefinitely, as long as they're paying for business service. Call one not in the USA. China or India perhaps. -as _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf