Subject: (ngtrans) Why do the 6to4-6bone relays work so badly? Is it possible to use 2002:c058:6301:: with XP?

From: "Anssi Porttikivi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:08:06 +0200

I am using XP and I have tried with the default MS relay,
6to4.ipv6.funet.fi and 6to4.kfu.com and various other relays. I seldom
get to ping to any 3ffe or 2001 addresses. Why? It feels almost like the
public "relays" would just be 6to4 routers with no 6bone connection? Or
is 6bone routing totally screwed up? Or are the IPv6 firewalls stopping
my ICPM packets?

Can I use 2002:c058:6301:: (6to4-6bone relay anycast) with XP? Looks
like not. Setting a relay with 

	netsh interface ipv6 6to4 set relay <relay DNS name>

works fine, which I can verify by looking at the 6to4 default gateway
IPv6 address of ipconfig output, but using a literal 

	netsh interface ipv6 6to4 set relay 2002:c058:6301::

will fail.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:11:38 +0200 (EET)

> is 6bone routing totally screwed up? Or are the IPv6 firewalls stopping

The Microsoft implementation makes a ludicrous assumption (that the relay
address is 2002:<V4ADDR>::<V4DDR>, note the IID part) which seem to be
only true for their relay.
 
Bad for IPv6 but I guess they deserved it.

This is outside of the scope of this list, I believe, though.

(Oh, this is reported fixed in some newer releases like .NET, no idea 
myself).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:27:25 +0100

I'd like to point out that the usage of 6to4 addresses built into
Windows XP is not the usage described in the Proposed Standard
for 6to4 (RFC 3056), which talks about 6to4 *routers*. Nobody has
published a document describing host usage of 6to4.

   Brian

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:56:04 -0800

Anssi Porttikivi wrote:
> 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi and 6to4.kfu.com and various other relays. 
> I seldom get to ping to any 3ffe or 2001 addresses. Why? It 
> feels almost like the public "relays" would just be 6to4 
> routers with no 6bone connection? Or is 6bone routing totally 
> screwed up? Or are the IPv6 firewalls stopping my ICPM packets?
> 
> Can I use 2002:c058:6301:: (6to4-6bone relay anycast) with 
> XP? Looks like not. ...

It is more likely that you will get help with questions like these on
the MS list: [email-masked]
You might also check the XP IPv6 FAQ at www.microsoft.com/ipv6

FWIW, I use XP through the MS or Cisco relays regularly without
problems.

Pekka Savola wrote:
> The Microsoft implementation makes a ludicrous assumption 
> (that the relay address is 2002:<V4ADDR>::<V4DDR>, note the 
> IID part) which seem to be only true for their relay.
>  

That is the only reasonable choice when there is only a A record to work
from.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I'd like to point out that the usage of 6to4 addresses built 
> into Windows XP is not the usage described in the Proposed 
> Standard for 6to4 (RFC 3056), which talks about 6to4 
> *routers*. Nobody has published a document describing host 
> usage of 6to4.

The XP 6to4 function is a router, that happens to be co-resident in the
same OS with the host. If there are multiple interfaces in the box, it
acts as a normal router per 3056 (my laptop does this all the time for
the VMware guest OS's).  

Tony

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:14:33 +0200 (EET)

> That is the only reasonable choice when there is only a A record to work

No.

There is _no_ data to make _any_ determination of the _interface ID_.

Thus, anything that would be depend on the IID must not be used.

(If I'd want to guess the IID, I'd try :: or ::1, but that's not the 
point.)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:10:30 -0500

> That is the only reasonable choice when there is only a A record to work

please explain how it is 'reasonable' to make any assumptions about a
node's IPv6 address in the absence of actual information about that.