Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt

[Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com>]

At 05:03 PM 10/25/2004 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
> > Thanks Tim, just one follow-up
> > > Why use 6to4 or a broker for a large enterprise when a specific
> tunnel
> > > can be set up?
> > 
> > Indeed, that is better if possible. But with a disobliging ISP,
> it
> > might not be possible.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand your comment.  Even if your own ISP
> would
> not be willing to set up a configured v6-in-v4 tunnel, there could
> be
> some other ISPs (for example, the ones for whom the enterprise pays
> for this :), which is willing to set up a configured v6-in-v4
> tunnel.
>
> Yes, this takes some effort from the enterprise, but if enterprise
> is
> doing anything with IPv6 except testing it out, that seems like the
> only manageable alternative, with some guarantee of actually 
> working
> reliably.
>
> So, IMHO, enterprises can certainly test IPv6 using 6to4, but I
> don't
> think it would be a good idea to recommend it for much more than
> that.

Right.  This was one of the main idea of using 6to4 while testing it
among several enterprise campuses and using a 2002 followed by global
IPv4 address (forming a fake global IPv6 address).  So, if the the
enterprise did not get a a chance to get a real IPv6 address, they can
just use 6to4 tunneling address and test things out among several sites
and also connect to IPv6 Internet by using a 6to4 Relay.

But, if the enterprise planning to move to the next step, then they
should plan of getting a real global IPv6 address (2001:).

Regards,
Salman


> -- 
> Pekka
> Savola               
>  "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore
> Oy                  
>  kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of
> Kings