[Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq 2.61test7 & RA issues
themiron at mail.ru
Sun Mar 25 22:12:01 BST 2012
> From: dnsmasq-discuss-bounces at lists.thekelleys.org.uk [mailto:dnsmasq-
> discuss-bounces at lists.thekelleys.org.uk] On Behalf Of Jan Seiffert
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:04 AM
> To: dnsmasq discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq 2.61test7 & RA issues
> 2012/3/25 Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>:
> > On 25/03/12 14:21, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
> >>> From: Simon Kelley
> >>> 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
> 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.
Actually 6to4 is subset of 6RD with preset 2002:: prefix and 32bit of ipv4 address length.
So, talking about 6to4 as more common solution with dynamic IPv4 , ISP's 6RD is assumed too.
Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss