This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rémi Després
remi.despres at free.fr
Wed Dec 2 14:34:11 CET 2009
Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : > Running MTU1280 when doing 6to4 solves quite a lot of the problems, Agreed. > but > it's still hard to localise problems when they occur because of the > asymmetric nature of 6to4. Agreed too. As long as it is not guaranteed that all tier-1 operators have 6to4 relays, there will be 6to4 black holes, hard to predict and identify. This is avoided with 6rd which is safe, as theory shows and practice confirms. RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]