Subject: (ngtrans) 6over4 for KAME (FreeBSD)

From: Brad Huntting <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:21:37 -0600

Has anyone started writing a 6over4 (rfc2529) driver for KAME and/or
FreeBSD?

I have a pointer to a UCLA project called "Virtual Ethernet" by
Quang Nguyen (no email address given), but it was written for the
Inria stack and FreeBSD2.  If there's nothing else available, I
may use this as a guide.

thanx,
brad

---

From: "f.johan.beisser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)

i'm not sure if this is what you mean, but:

http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/6to4/

also, i think that it is documented on http://www.kame.net.

of course, i oculd very well be talking out of my butt.

-- jan

> Inria stack and FreeBSD2.  If there's nothing else available, I

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      [email-masked]
   "Never laugh at someone until you've walked a mile in their
         shoes. Then laugh. For you are a mile away, and
                      you have their shoes."

---

From: Brad Huntting <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:46:25 -0600

> http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/6to4/

Actually this web page brings up another issue that a freind and
I were discussing just yesterday.  Anyone who's actually tried to
use 6to4 (2002::/16) has probably noticed that they need a default
route to reach the 6bone.  But even assuming you actually find such
a router it is almost always on the far side of the Internet; which
means that your packets get to take the scenic route on their way
to the 6bone.

One simple solution to this would seem to be to use a well known
IPv4 "anycast" address (call it "a.b.c.d" for now) for all 6to4
gateways.

In this way, anyone using 6to4 could reliably use 2002:(a.b.c.d)::1
(actual IPv6 address syntax will vary) as a default route to the
6bone.

6to4 gateways would advertise to the their IPv4 peers that they
have a route for "a.b.c.d".  And for their IPv6 peers (the 6bone)
they can advertise a route for 2002::/16.

Does anyone see a problem with this?  I dont suppose there's already
a block of IPv4 address space set aside for anycast?

brad

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:25:39 -0400

> IPv4 "anycast" address (call it "a.b.c.d" for now) for all 6to4
 
I've thought about this a bit, and would like it slightly better
if the v4 anycast address were used as the link layer address
for a variant of router discovery (rather than assuming a default
route to the anycast address).  It's more versatile that way.
 
Keith

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:09:15 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> I have one and I know there is (was?) one done by the CAIRN group
(perhaps the one you have referenced).

=> of course mine is for the INRIA stack but it is rather easy to
adapt or rewrite... The only issue is you can't delete multicast
structures because of the chaining but this is not an important
issue (because of the lack of interest for 6over4?).

Regards

[email-masked]