Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/14 12:12 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:03:19PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> (Client has working global IPv4, Router has working global IPv4, neither
>>> has v6, but peer-to-peer 6to4 enables access to inside LAN with 2002:
>>> addresses derived from Router's v4 address)
>>
>> Isn't that the use case that ULAs are meant to cover? Or am I missing
>> something here?
>
> So how exactly do ULAs help connect to your home network from abroad,
> when all you have is IPv4 at the client?
>
> "client" is obviously *outside* "home network"

Ok, then I misunderstood your point, thanks for clarifying.

>> I made the point earlier that (for example) OpenWRT already has support
>> for PD, it also creates a ULA network on the LAN side, whether you have
>> a public prefix (or tunnel) or not. So all of that is doable today, with
>> running code.
>
> That wasn't the question.  Ole was asking "what are use cases for
> peer-to-peer 6to4" (RFC 3056 without 3068).

Yeah, I have the same question. :)  If users are stuck on an IPv4-only 
ISP, and want IPv6, they have proven alternatives already. IMO it's 
going to be very hard to send a clear message to implementers and 
operators, "Deprecate *this* kind of 6to4, but *not* this other kind."

Doug