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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: 'Templin, Fred L'; 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: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:40 PM
> > To: Dan Wing; '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
> >
> > > Enabling 6to4 behind a NAT causes a disconnected IPv6 island.
> >
> > s/NAT/proto-41 filtering firewall/
> 
> True.  However this document is discussing IP address sharing (not firewalls, nor
> all of other failures of IPv6-over-IPv4
> tunneling.)

Which is why the message post you were trying to summarize seems to be
unrelated to this document.

-Dave

> 
> -d
> 
> 
> > 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
> 