Re:

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-08 19:35, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:16:36 +1200,  wrote:
> 
>> I suggest that if address acquistion by DHCPv6 fails, there
>> should be a (configurable) option to discover a 6to4
>> relay. CPE routers were in fact a target when 6to4 was designed.
>> It only needs a few lines and a reference to RFC 3056 and 3068.
> 
> 
> While I don't necessarily disagree with the high-level idea, I am not a big
> fan of automatically configuring 6to4 gatewaying on the sole basis of
> having an IPv4 address.
> 
> 
> I have had multiple cases of public IPv4 addresses with non working 6to4
> relay:
> 
> - no anycast 6to4 routing,
> 
> - anycast 6to4 relay temporarily broken,
> 
> - public IPv4 address space behind a NAT (!),
> 
> - stateless firewall that drops proto-41,
> 
> - statefull firewall that tracks proto-41 "bindings"...
> 

Yes, that's why 6to4 absolutely needs to be configurable, preferably
by something less obscure than
netsh interface ipv6 6to4 set state state=enabled

   Brian
> 
> I wish private IPv4 addresses had the same scope as public IPv4 addresses
> within RFC3484 - then broken 6to4 would not be so much of a problem
> anymore.
> 
> 
> 
>> Also I suggest that there should be a configurable option
> 
>> to generate and support a ULA prefix. Again, a few lines
> 
>> and a reference to RFC 4193.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>