On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 15:05 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: <SNIP> > > next to that there are a number of drafts which have been submitted > > for quite some time already surrounding this subject and > > specifically for doing IPv6 over NAT- crippled IPv4 hosts. I don't > > recall seeing a draft about Hexago's v6udpv4 protocol though, not > > that it is complex but still. > > Yes, there have definitely been drafts :). It seemed that these have > some short-comings though, so that trying to merge the best parts of > each to one proposal might make sense. I haven't seen any comments indicating such on both the AYIYA nor on the heartbeat drafts which I submitted. Then again apparently a lot of people seem to ignore anything with -00 or -01. I did get quite a number of positive comments though. On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 08:10 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote: > Thanks for my answer I agree and makes sense to get this done. FYI > early adopters are setting up tunnels now and using multiple approaches > to discover TEPS. The ones I am seeing dominant right now are private > company/provider tunnel brokers with set up and hand configured TEPs, Most tunnel brokers system (the ones I know at least) are fully automated. Though the automation is mostly simply typing in what otherwise the user had to type thus making IPv6 connectivity possible for the not so computer-freaky. Also I think that many of the 'early adopters' are not 'early adopters' any more, they are mostly around for some 5+ years already. (Freenet6 is around since 1999) Many entities already have a lot of experience in deploying IPv6 even though in some areas of this globe only since some goverment agency started donating big money they started working on it. > mannual tunnel configured TEPs at edges, and to lesser degree DHCPv6 > with custom extensions. So a TEP discovery solution is required for > sure. DHCPv6? I still have to see that working ;) Would be nice option to have though, create a tunnel, use RA or DHCP to get the prefix on the tunnel and possibly also The main reason I know that we are not using RA's is that we want the host to be ::2/64, so we can ping6 it for latency and availability and then we can also correctly point the prefix to that ip. DHCPv6 could solve that, but how many hosts/router platforms have that functionality again? DHCPv6-PD would be really nice to do though. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part