[85631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Deploying 6to4 outbound routes at the border (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Fri Oct 14 18:34:02 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:31:45 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0510141753100.21125@server.duh.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:06:03PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> That said, even such a distant gateway would be fine for v6 *eyeballs* if
> organizations would voluntarily set up 6to4 outbound relays for their own v6
> networks. It's as simple as setting up a route to 2002::/16 at the border
> with a 6to4 conversion.
The problem is building a high performance gateway. Currently you have
about the following two options:
a) set up / configure a Cisco used as 6to4 gateway
b) set up a dedicated host (Unix box) as 6to4 gateway
Approach a) is good for only few traffic, really.
Approach b) is more complex.
Both approaches aren't really appealing.
I'm waiting for vendor J to enable option c)... implementing 6to4 via
the Tunnel PIC (or other PICs including the Tunnel PIC functionalities
like Link Services PIC). It's a very simple translation/encapsulation
which doesn't require any state keeping, shouldn't be a big deal. I can
imagine a few larger IPv6 ISPs then suddenly implementing 6to4 gateways.
:-)
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
