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

> Enabling 6to4 behind a NAT causes a disconnected IPv6 island.

s/NAT/proto-41 filtering firewall/

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:17 PM
> To: 'Dave Thaler'; 'Matthew Ford'
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; 'Brian E Carpenter'; draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org;
> 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Thaler [mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:05 PM
> > To: Dan Wing; 'Matthew Ford'
> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; 'Brian E Carpenter';
> > draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org; '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
> 
> 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.
> 
> -d
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area