[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
- From: Rob Austein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:51:43 -0400
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:52:30 -0700
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) SEMI/1.14.4 (Hosorogi) FLIM/1.14.4(Kashiharajingū-mae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0(HANANOEN)
At Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:59:41 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> We are still missing an RFC really analysing host-based 6to4,
> >> and until that work has been done we don't know what is bogus.
> > a new work item for the v6ops WG?
> how is this different from what shipworm is trying to solve?
Shipworm has a lower required density of global IPv4 addresses;
host-based-6to4 has less reliance on middleboxes.