Christian, > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Christian Huitema > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:17 PM > To: Michel Py; Rémi Després > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Keith Moore > Subject: RE: 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)? > > 6rd addresses a different problem than 6to4. > > 6to4 is a global solution, that relies on pretty much every > native IPv6 provider deploying 6to4 relays. If these relays > were really well deployed and reliable, 6to4 would allow any > router with a native IPv4 address to provide IPv6 > connectivity to its local users. That is, 6to4 relies on the > kindness of strangers and allows uncoordinated deployments by > end-users. > > 6rd is a local solution, that can be used by providers to > easily deploy IPv6 tunnels over their existing IPv4 > infrastructure. The provider controls the IPv6 prefix, which > effectively defines a specific 6rd "subnet." The provider > also controls the deployment of relays between the 6rd subnet > and the native Internet. There is no need to rely on the > kindness of strangers. I think this is well said. Another way of saying the same thing is that 6to4 is an inter-site solution while 6rd is an intra-site solution when considering the provider network as a "site". With extensions, ISATAP can also satisfy this provider network intra-site requirement (see draft-templin-isupdate) while enabling the desired IPv6 services for end-user sites. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@xxxxxxxxxx > In a sense, 6rd is very similar to a tunnel broker > deployment, with a key improvement and an important > limitation. The key improvement is the ability for 6rd > routers in the same domain to send traffic directly at each > other. Local traffic stays local, does not need to be relayed > by the tunnel servers or the 6rd relays. The key limitation > is that 6rd assumes direct IPv4 connectivity between the > participating 6rd routers, i.e. no NAT. > > 6rd is a very good solution for its intended usage, rapid > deployment of IPv6 by IPv4 providers. But 6rd is not a > replacement for the "global, uncoordinated" 6to4 deployment. > Hosts that really need this kind of uncoordinated global > solution will have to rely on Teredo if they cannot use 6to4. > Whether that's a good thing is clearly a matter of debate. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Michel Py > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:38 AM > To: Rémi Després > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Keith Moore > Subject: RE: 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)? > > > Rémi Després wrote: > > 6rd is designed to offer native IPv6 prefixes across > IPv4-only routing > > domains. > > There is a word for that: oxymoron. In French: oxymore. > If it stops working when IPv4 is broken, it is not native. > > Michel. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf