RE: IPv6 routing /48s

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

Just for the record, I like my host being the degenerate case of "6to4 site
+ site router all in one".
This makes my life much easier, as I frequently need IPv6 connectivity and
frequently have a public IP(v4) address (EVDO, FTW).

Having said that - what applies to me may well not be the common case.

(Just wanted to state this in case MS is listening and was thinking about
removing the functionality.  I think the right approach is to detect the
failure (s) when they occur, not to remove the functionality)


/TJ


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates () brightok net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:05 PM
> To: Nathan Ward
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 routing /48s
>
> Nathan Ward wrote:
> > The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 =
> > unfiltered/unNATed for the purposes of 6to4.
> > Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I
> > suppose
> > - it's supposed to be used on routers.
>
> While I don't doubt that the 6to4 is broken in such circumstances, how many
> IPv6 content providers are using 6to4 addressing and not 2001::
> addressing? 6to4 by default on xp and vista, in my experience, is only used
> if a) talking to another 6to4 address or b) there is no IPv4 address
> available.
>
> 6to4 never seemed like a viable method for content providing, though its
use
> at the eyeball layer is somewhat iffy given that it's primary use is for
> other 6to4 addresses. If prefix policies are altered to use it for
> 2001:: addressing, problems start arising quickly.
>
> A good example is that traceroutes through my he.net tunnel using 6to4
> source addresses do not get replies through he.net's network, presumably
due
> to their routers not being 6to4 aware and having no route to respond.
> Responses pick up again after picking up a network such as NTT that is 6to4
> aware. My 2001:: addressing works just fine the entire route.
>
> I'm sure there's quite a few networks that aren't 6to4 aware, hindering
> 6to4 connectivity to non-6to4 addresses.
>
> Jack