[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Thu Nov 26 14:51:12 CET 2009
On 26 nov 2009, at 14:48, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Lutz Donnerhacke > >> I still reading this draft and try hard to find the benefit over >> announcing more specific routes in 2002::/16. >> >> Can you please hit me into the right direction? > > RFC 3068. Modern client applications will prefer using IPv4 over IPv6 > to connect to remote servers, if the local systems' IPv6 address is > within 2002::/16. Even when behind IPv4 NAT. Doesn't seem to be a problem in running 6rd since it's all designed to keep running IPv4 instead of IPv6. Groet, MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]