IPv6 news

Fri Oct 14 18:47:42 UTC 2005

Thus spake "Kevin Loch" <kloch at hotnic.net>
> Randy Bush wrote:
>> and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6?
>
> No, but I would like to see consumer routers support rfc3068
> (automatic 6to4 tunneling) by default when there is no native IPv6
> access service.
>
> If we could convince manufacturers that rfc3068 is "NAT" for ipv6
> they'll probably jump right on it :)

That's probably the best suggestion yet for getting consumers on IPv6; MS 
has even included support for 6to4 and Teredo in XP, just waiting to be 
turned on.  There's millions of people out there that have, with one 6to4 
relay alone showing a tenfold increase in machines over the last year; 
that's going to be a significant number of eyeballs in another year.

Unfortunately, while there's lots of great support for 6to4 in the 
open-source WRT software, somehow Linksys et al still haven't managed to get 
the feature (or even simple v6 support) into their standard releases.  I 
have a pre-WRT Linksys which won't even support allowing 6in4/6to4 traffic 
through from my XP box.

RFC 3068 also has another problem -- not enough relays, or at least not 
enough in logical locations.  From my home in Texas, a traceroute shows the 
topologically "closest" instance of 192.88.99.1 to be in France.  Nice to 
see that GBLX's "native" IPv6 network doesn't have any 6to4 relays in the 
US, and that AT&T doesn't have any at all. (Or if they do, they need serious 
anycast tuning)

I'm not convinced that businesses will be interested in 6to4 or Teredo, 
though; most will want PI space and a native pipe just like they have with 
v4.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 