Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt

[shogunx <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Fred Baker wrote:

> if you have a v6-only domain - and these already exist - and you want
> v4 to run over it, that's you're only option.

so if i want to provide ipv4 service to my wireless network, currently
v6 only, unless you call "v4 NAT" v4 cnnectivity, which i don't because
the end to end is broken with NAT, i place a v4inv6 tunnel in my v6inv4
tunnel (nasty for latency, since both of my v6 tunnels travel some 2000+
miles before terminating at the tunnel brokers) and i'm still left with
the same problem that led me to NAT and number (and multihome) with v6 in
the first place:  i was too young to get a v4 allocation when they were
free, don't have barrels of cash laying around to get a proper v4
allocation, and those v4 addresses retail for around $10/each per month
these days.

>
> On Oct 16, 2005, at 4:41 PM, shogunx wrote:
>
> > Why tunnel v over v6?
> >
>
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/