[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D Action:draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels-01.txt



Hi,

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:05:47PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > For the large mass of end users, they don't seem to see a benefit in
> > deploying IPv6 while their IPv4 internet is still working - so I doubt
> > that the originally-envisioned usage case of 6to4-with-anycast (3068)
> 
> Is 6to4-with-anycast the most deployed form of 6to4?

As far as I understand, yes.

> FWIW, Windows does not use the 6to4 anycast address, but rather resolves
> 6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com, and uses the corresponding a records for the
> destination address of tunneled packets (Hurrican Electric relays, the
> last time that I checked). 

Well, what shall I say...

$ host 6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com
6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com has address 192.88.99.1

... this *is* the anycast relay address.

The IPv6 address returned points somewhere else, but is fairly meaningless
as that's never used by an encapsulating client.


Even if that would point to a managed relay, it won't help for the reply
packets "from the native IPv6 internet".  So the point is completely moot.

> One would guess that for managed 6to4 routers
> this would be even more so the case.

Ditto: return packets.  As long as you use 2002:: addresses, you have no
control on the return path.

6rd uses different address space, and has full control over both directions.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  155817

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Attachment: pgp6CvxpP7V0r.pgp
Description: PGP signature