Philip Homburg wrote: >>> There are many people (myself included) that are happily using 6to4, >>> and we're using 6to4 because the ISPs available to us are utterly and >>> completely clueless, so we don't really have any other option. If the >>> 6to4 anycast goes away and you require the ISP to deploy something for >>> the replacement technology, you are effectively cutting us off from >>> the IPv6 Internet for the foreseeable future. >> The point is that ISPs, rather than setting up a 6to4 relay router >> should setup a 6rd Gateway in order to offer native IPv6 prefix to their >> customers. > > I wonder, what if ISPs who want to do an '6rd' like thing would announce > longer prefixes than just 2002::/16. For example an ISP who has customers > in an IPv4 /16 can announce 2002:xxyy::/32. > > To me it seems like that would end the 2002::/16 blackhole problem for that > ISP's customers. And import the complete IPv4 routing table into the IPv6 routing table. No thank you. See the 6to4 RFC btw which discusses that. Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature