In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:31:13 -0700 you wrote:
- If one is in the business of writing an draft about "what is native
IPv6", and if one of the draft's goals is to reach -cough- consensus
-cough-, one may consider "forgetting" the 6PE classification
altogether. The one part that is not open for grabs with me is
classifying 6RD as native.
Why do you care so much about 'native'?
At the moment, I have 5 IPv6 connections:
1) native
2) tunnel to my ISP
3) tunnel to HE
4) tunnel to SixXS
5) 6to4
Obviously, the first one is native and the others aren't, But as user of those
links, it seems a completely arbitrary and useless distinction.
Number 5, 6to4 is obviously a problem. So that's in the 'avoid' category.
Number 3 and 4, require good access to the IPv4 Internet. At the moment
they work perfectly, but they are not future proof.
Numbers 1 and 2. In first case, ppp frames go over atm/ethernet to my ISP.
In the second case, IPv4 packets go over ppp frames over atm/ethernet to my
ISP. Yes, compared to native, the tunnel has an extra IPv4 header, but
otherwise, there is no difference. (At my ISP, native and tunneled are
terminated differently, but so far that difference is almost impossible to
notice)
So my classification would be
1) IPv6 provided by the user's ISP. (native, 6rd, tunnel by ISP)
2) IPv6 provided by a third party (tunnels by other parties)
3) IPv6 provided by unknown third parties (6to4, teredo)
1) can be made to work very well, 2) has problems, 3) is to be avoided.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf