[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:03:10 +0900
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:03:27 -0700
Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com

>The specification that the IETF actually approved was for router-based
>6to4, not host-based, and it was assumed that router operators would
>club together to configure and share relays. Clearly, a client-host 

	WinXP node can become a router, so there's nothing prohibiting WinXP
	from running 6to4.  in fact, i don't see any distinction between
	"router-based 6to4" and "host-based 6to4" in the RFC.  am i mistaken?

itojun

Prev by Date: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
Next by Date: Re: (ngtrans) Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
Previous by thread: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
Next by thread: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread