[99769] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Creating demand for IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elmar K. Bins)
Wed Oct 3 23:46:47 2007
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 05:44:55 +0200
From: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>,
Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9E3CEC6C-2390-4A05-83F2-E326285B6B04@ca.afilias.info>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Re Joe,
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.
I was referring to a proxying service...see Michael's post for the details ;-)
Yours,
Elmar.
