"Rémi Després" <despres.remi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Le 27 juil. 2011 à 17:29, Michel Py a écrit : >> ... >>>> Fred Baker wrote: >>>> Actually, I think one could argue pretty >>>> effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis. >> >> Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons >> that 6to4 is. >> >> >>> Keith Moore wrote: >>> only if you're confused about the use cases for each. >> >> Even if there are different use cases indeed (as you explained it very >> well yourself) > >> you can't deny that 6rd is 6to4-bis. > >Oh, yes indeed, on can! >(Depending, of course on what you mean with 6to4-bis, but no one can be >sure what you mean). > >- 6to4 delivers native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, which 6to4 doesn't. >- 6to4 has known operational problems, not 6rd. In a sense, 6rd has all of the problems that 6to4 does. The difference is that 6to4 is deployed independent of network operators and often without their involvement, and 6rd (when deployed) is deployed by network operators on their own networks. So 6to4 tries to work over networks that might or might not be unsuitable for it, or even hostile to it. By contrast, if an operator's network isn't a good fit for 6rd, they simply don't use it. And presumably an operator choosing to use 6rd won't try to DoS it... Again: there are valid use cases for 6to4. But almost any kind of provider managed service (except one that NATs traffic) is almost certainly better. Keith -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf