[99752] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Creating demand for IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Oct 3 14:33:16 2007
In-Reply-To: <20071003154259.GY66222@ronin.4ever.de>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:43:47 -0400
To: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 3-Oct-2007, at 1143, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> jabley@ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley) wrote:
>
>> 6to4 (for content- or access-focussed networks) is surely a solution
>> to the problem of "I have no good way to acquire IPv6 transit";
>
> It solves another problem as well, like "I cannot go v6 to
> my servers because my load balancing and packet filtering
> black boxes don't do it yet".
I'm not sure how it solves that problem. 6to4 is not a translation
mechanism -- it's a tunnelling mechanism. 6to4 does not provide any
way for an IPv4-only host to talk to an IPv6-only host.
In order to make use of 6to4, surely servers and load balancers still
need to support IPv6 -- they just get loaded with addresses covered
by a 6to4 prefix rather than a prefix assigned by an RIR or an IPv6
transit provider.
Joe
