Re: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:17 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; 'Matthew Ford'
> Cc: [e-mail]; 'Brian E Carpenter'; draft-ford-shared-addressing-
> [e-mail]; 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Thaler [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:05 PM
> > To: Dan Wing; 'Matthew Ford'
> > Cc: [e-mail]; 'Brian E Carpenter';
> > [e-mail]; 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> >
> > > Some routers enable 6to4 [RFC3056] on their WAN link.  6to4
> > requires a
> > > publicly-routable IPv4 address.  Enabling 6to4 behind a NAT causes a
> > > disconnected IPv6 island."
> >
> > The last sentence above is incorrect.  The second sentence is correct.
> > So one cannot "enable" 6to4 behind a NAT since one has no
> > publically-routable IPv4 address.  Hence one does not get an IPv6
> > island.  One gets no IPv6 at all (from 6to4 anyway).
> 
> I was attempting to summarize the problem that has been ascribed to Apple's
> Airport Extreme routers turning on 6to4, which is mentioned in many threads on
> the Internet including
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00263.html

As Fred points out, that issue is not about shared IPv4 addresses so seems
out of scope for this thread.

> 
> If there is more accurate wording, I'm all for it.  I would like some discussion of
> CPE (and hosts) blindly enabling 6to4 causing problems when the CPE's IPv4
> WAN address is shared.

I don't follow what you're getting at.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> -d
>