[Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq 2.61test7 & RA issues

[Jan Seiffert]

2012/3/25 Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>:
> On 25/03/12 14:21, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
>>> From: Simon Kelley
[snip]
>>> The 6to4 case, maybe more useful.
>>> But is 6to4 going to be used much in the real world?
>> I'd say 6to4 is the only easy solution for end-users at the moment whose ISP
>> doesn't allow any IPv6.
>> If they uses some kind of CPE in router mode with dnsmasq on-board and want
>> to use IPv6 too, it makes sense.
>> Frankly speaking, in Russia/UA the majority ISP doesn't offer IPv6
>> connectivity at all.
>
> That's true in most places. Very few UK ISPs offer IPv6. Most people I
> know what want it use a 6in4 tunnel via a tunnel broker. I'm using Sixxs
> and it works very well. 6to4 has a bad reputation, partly because it
> comes with asymmetric routing.
>
> I think most people will not get IPv6 until their ISP offers it.
>

Don't forget 6RD. It's basically 6to4, but with another, ISP-specific,
IPv6 prefix. the ISP "Free" in France uses it to deploy IPv6 to all
it's customer AFAIK.
The idea is that you don't need any new HW in the
backbone/BRAS/whatever, the ISP only deploys new firmware to it's CPEs
(if they already can talk 6to4, it's a 150 line change to allow arb.
prefixes, see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/34121/), and the
"asymmetric" 6to4 Routers are under the control (and SLAG and whatnot)
of the ISP, some extra boxes without ties to the other HW.

[snip]
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>

Greetings
Jan


-- 
˙qɐɥ ʇɟnɐʞǝƃ ʎɐqǝ ıǝq ɹnʇɐʇsɐʇ ǝuıǝ ɹıɯ ɥɔı sɐp lɐɯ ǝʇzʇǝl sɐp ʇsı sɐp
'ʇɯɯɐpɹǝʌ