On Jun 12, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Michel Py wrote:
If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred
Solution over "tunneled", it does not hold water.
To be fair, I think the argument is more that "ISP managed" IPv6 is preferred
over "IPv6 tunneled by end-users through relay routers set up on an ad hoc
basis". And I can't really disagree with that.
I don't think there's any doubt that native > 6rd > 6to4 (where ">" is "a
better way to deploy IPv6"). But you have to use whatever you can get.
For ISPs that are still looking at native v6 as a target to be deployed to
consumers in a few years or longer, I really wish they'd consider 6rd as an
interim step.
And for those rolling out LSN, I really wish they'd at least roll out 6rd along
with it. That way, application developers that currently use PnP or NAT-PMP to
get through NATs would have the option of using IPv6, instead of having to
support yet another NAT traversal hack in their code (and supporting different
NAT hacks for different customers).
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf