Subject: [v6ops] Comment on draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:00:29 +0000

To echo what I said at the mic:

I would support this draft ONLY if it narrows its focus so that it is just
solving the admittedly real problem of: 
6to4 enabled host + non-unique routable(non RFC1918) IPv4 space behind a NAT
= broken 6to4

Putting NAT66 in the middle of 6to4 in the aim of trying to make it suck
less is not a good solution for any case other than the above. 

As I said with draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels:
The solution is to actually make 6to4 suck less by acknowledging that 6to4
isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon and recommend that ISPs and content
providers deploy more 6to4 relays to make the path less sub-optimal.

Wes George

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:07:13 +0800

Wes,

The use case we will run the experiment on will be the CGN/NAT444 case.

Regards,

Victor

On 10/11/10 11:00 AM, "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops