Re: Rethinking the transition: ditching IPv4

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:03:43 +0930
Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:14:12 +0200
> Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear IPv6 operators,
> > 
> <snip>
> > 
<snip>

> 
> * The advantage of indirectly expressing the IPv4 prefix length in the
> "4to6" IPv6 announced prefix length is that if there are two "4to6"
> aware end-nodes attached to the same link, at the IPv4 layer, they'd
> recognise that they are direct peers, and therefore can directly
> communicate via IPv4 i.e. vanilla and standard IPv4 only operation. The
> IPv6 encapsulation overhead is only borne when sending IPv4 traffic to
> offlink IPv4 destinations.
> 

This was a bit wrong. It applies whether the end-node is "4to6" aware
or not.