RE: RFC 2893-style automatic tunneling

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

In fact I just had to deal with a customer asking about automated tunneling
of IPv4 over an IPv6-only network in the last couple of weeks. At this point
I am not sure if 2893 is the only way to solve the problem, but it is at
least one way. While it is creates some routing issues if used in the
greater Internet, it may have applicability in some closed configurations
without a massive number of routes. It would be premature to deprecate it at
this time.

Tony



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Templin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: Fred Templin
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC 2893-style automatic tunneling
> 
> 
> There was no answer to my question on RFC 2893-style 
> automatic tunneling, so I take this as a possible indication 
> that no one is still using this 
> mechanism.
> 
> Should we move to deprecate, then? If so, what form should the 
> deprecation take?
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
> 
> Fred Templin wrote:
> 
> > Is RFC 2893-style automatic tunneling (i.e., with 
> IPv4-compatible IPv6
> > addresses)
> > used in any active deployments? It seems to me that the 
> functionality 
> > is obsoleted
> > by newer automatic tunneling mechanisms (e.g., 6to4, 
> isatap, etc.) but 
> > I'd like to
> > hear from those with more current operational experience.
> >
> > Thanks  - Fred
> > ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
> 
> 
> 
>