North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 15:06:49 2005

Thus spake "Kevin Loch" <[email protected]>
Randy Bush wrote:
and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6?
No, but I would like to see consumer routers support rfc3068
(automatic 6to4 tunneling) by default when there is no native IPv6
access service.

If we could convince manufacturers that rfc3068 is "NAT" for ipv6
they'll probably jump right on it :)
That's probably the best suggestion yet for getting consumers on IPv6; MS has even included support for 6to4 and Teredo in XP, just waiting to be turned on. There's millions of people out there that have, with one 6to4 relay alone showing a tenfold increase in machines over the last year; that's going to be a significant number of eyeballs in another year.

Unfortunately, while there's lots of great support for 6to4 in the open-source WRT software, somehow Linksys et al still haven't managed to get the feature (or even simple v6 support) into their standard releases. I have a pre-WRT Linksys which won't even support allowing 6in4/6to4 traffic through from my XP box.

RFC 3068 also has another problem -- not enough relays, or at least not enough in logical locations. From my home in Texas, a traceroute shows the topologically "closest" instance of to be in France. Nice to see that GBLX's "native" IPv6 network doesn't have any 6to4 relays in the US, and that AT&T doesn't have any at all. (Or if they do, they need serious anycast tuning)

I'm not convinced that businesses will be interested in 6to4 or Teredo, though; most will want PI space and a native pipe just like they have with v4.


Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov