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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, sorry.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:15:28 +0300 (EEST)
>     From:        Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
>     Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209102114250.26051-100000@netcore.fi>
> 
>   | I wonder if we can encourage Microsoft implementations not to assume bogus 
>   | things about 6to4 relays.  Like it having the address 
>   | '2002:<RELAY_IPv4>::<RELAY_IPv4>'.
> 
> I haven't seen the implementation, so this is a real question ... which
> way is it assuming that?
> 
> If when it is acting as a 6to4, that's the address it assigns itself,
> that is, RELAY_IPv4 is its own IPv4 address, then that sounds OK to me,
> it has to have something, as a v6 addr by default, right?

What I meant is that 6to4 routers, in MS implementations that I'm aware
of, can be configured with the relay's IPv4 address.  Additionally it's
looked up from DNS.  No problem.

For MS implementation to be able to use that specified relay, the relay
must have 2002:<RELAY_IPv4>::<RELAY_IPv4> address.  (I assume it's trying
to ping the relay before using it or something, I really don't care that
much).
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords