IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] my recommendation re: 6to4

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sat, 01 November 2014 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09EF1A6FE8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LeiNphqFbUY4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (sequoia.muada.com [IPv6:2001:1af8:3100:a006:1::]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 654AA1A6F57 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (5356888C.cm-6-7c.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.136.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id sA19EYRa065327 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:14:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <686FABB5-9A9E-4D0C-BD1A-19CA02A9C247@muada.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:14:43 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5983EB2-13DE-487B-B1DE-044660755485@muada.com>
References: <5454119C.3090601@network-heretics.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832D75F09@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <686FABB5-9A9E-4D0C-BD1A-19CA02A9C247@muada.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KKr87WS1nRF_LZafMhUlR-ylZYM
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] my recommendation re: 6to4
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:14:57 -0000

On 01 Nov 2014, at 10:06, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it could look like this: as a user, you either automatically get an account using your existing email / cloud service credentials

[...]

Another thing: we could set aside a range of IPv6 addresses to be used by "tunnels of last resort". These addresses would get a lower priority than IPv4 addresses in the policy table, so if a tunnel broker / gateway hands out these addresses it can provide IPv6 connectivity towards IPv6-only destinations, but dual stack destinations are handled over IPv4, so the load on the gateway would be much less than in the situation where regular IPv6 addresses with a higher priority than IPv4 addresses are used.

3ffe::/16 perhaps?  </evil>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status