On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then.
Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking
tunnels has the flavor of "don't solve the problem, but rather, stamp out the
solution".
Actually, this mostly happens in enterprise networks and universities. I
don't see why they would want to change this compared to, say, actually
deploying native IPv6.
Well if an enterprise network wants to firewall certain kinds of traffic,
that's its own business. The fact that some enterprises firewall ip-over-ip
tunnels is not a justification for IETF trashing one particular kind of ip
tunnel.
In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs.
From where? Again, the tunnels aren't taking the variety of paths that 6to4
connections are. It's that variety that makes measurements such as Geoff's
at all useful - it's what lets you at least believe that the measurements
made at a few points are representative of the whole.
From the same place that he ran the 6to4 measurements from?
See above. It's not a valid measurement. Or the measurement is fine, but
comparisons between configured tunnels and 6to4 on the basis of such
measurements are not valid.
A few months ago I was trying to set one up, but I ran out of time. I'm
really busy these days, and it's nowhere nearly as easy to set up a
configured tunnel as it is to set up 6to4.
Go to http://tunnelbroker.net/ . I'm willing to bet that it will take a lot
less time than you have spent writing email on this thread. :-)
That's who I was using before.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf