Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-06.txt

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:54:30 -0700

Francis Dupont writes:
> Obviously
> 6to4 (as other transition mechanisms) has a narrow applicability
space,
> for instance it is not useful for ISPs (they'd prefer configured (ie.
> managed) tunnels) nor home users (because of the dynamic IPv4
address).

I'm a home user with a dynamic IPv4 address, and it works just fine
for me.  I'd say it's far more useful for home users than configured
tunnels is, since 6to4 can deal with dynamic IPv4 addresses much better
than configured tunnels.

-Dave

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:53:46 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > home users (because of the dynamic IPv4 address).
   
   for me.

=> is your 6to4 prefix changing with your dynamic IPv4 address?
I think most users would like to get a *static* IPv6 prefix...

   I'd say it's far more useful for home users than configured
   tunnels is, since 6to4 can deal with dynamic IPv4 addresses much better
   than configured tunnels.
   
=> but is it much better than configured tunnels + my draft
(draft-ietf-ngtrans-hometun-00.txt)?

[email-masked]

PS: I really need to implement my draft in order to have a tunnel
broker with support somewhere. I have a free FreeBSD 4.1 here,
is this good for tunnel broker people?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:07:20 -0400

> I think most users would like to get a *static* IPv6 prefix...

sure, if they had any sense.  but 6to4 is still useful even if
you cannot get a static prefix.  

Keith