On 3/10/2008, at 2:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So, Brian disagrees with the host based 6to4 thing, ie. the way WindowsVista and XPSP2 do it.No, I don't disagree with it, I just want to remind people that most of the thinking about how 6to4 routes should be announced was based on the router model, without considering either automatic discovery or anycast.
That's interesting eh, as so many people think of 6to4 the other way around.
I don't think that the anycast relays has anything to do with the host based stuff. It might have been related thought trains in peoples' mindsin 2001, but the anycast relays are just as relevant to router-based 6to4 as they are to host-based 6to4.Except that the idea was that router relationships for 6to4 would be configured by mutually consenting operators; whereas the anycast model implies zero-conf. There's a gap in the middle where a discovery protocol could live.
Yes.I have some thoughts around this I wouldn't mind whiteboarding with you - I'll get in touch next week.
For example, Airport Extreme, Linksys RVS4000, Cisco 8XX+config, etc. So, it's not just Windows.I'm not so hot on 6to4 stacks in hosts either, but my problem is wider - it is more with automatically configured 6to4, which is not specific tohosts.OK, but it's dominated by hosts, especially because of Vista.
Yes.This is easy to see that, at least for Vista and XP, because the address is of the form:
2002:AABB:CCDD::AABB:CCDD (Where AA.BB.CC.DD is the IPv4 address)Note that AABB:CCDD is repeated in the last 32 bits as well as in bits 33-48.
-- Nathan Ward