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 ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Thu Nov 26 14:51:12 CET 2009
On 26 nov 2009, at 14:48, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Lutz Donnerhacke > >> I still reading this draft and try hard to find the benefit over >> announcing more specific routes in 2002::/16. >> >> Can you please hit me into the right direction? > > RFC 3068. Modern client applications will prefer using IPv4 over IPv6 > to connect to remote servers, if the local systems' IPv6 address is > within 2002::/16. Even when behind IPv4 NAT. Doesn't seem to be a problem in running 6rd since it's all designed to keep running IPv4 instead of IPv6. Groet, MarcoH
- 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 ]