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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

note T64 can do the routing too and the relay as a host and we have customers using it.
that will be done on hp-ux too.  but we turn on interface as router according to ND rules.  we use this to assist our routing partners for v6 deployment.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> Cc: Pekka Savola; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]
> 
> 
> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > 
> > >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?
> 
> From the Introduction to RFC 3056:
> 
> >    The basic mechanism described in the present document, 
> which applies
> >    to sites rather than individual hosts, will scale indefinitely by
> >    limiting the number of sites served by a given relay router (see
> >    Section 5.2).  It will introduce no new entries in the 
> IPv4 routing
> >    table, and exactly one new entry in the native IPv6 routing table
> >    (see Section 5.10).
> > 
> >    Although the mechanism is specified for an IPv6 site, it 
> can equally
> >    be applied to an individual IPv6 host or very small 
> site, as long as
> >    it has at least one globally unique IPv4 address.  However, the
> >    latter case raises serious scaling issues which are the 
> subject of
> >    further study [SCALE].
> 
>     Brian
> 
>