[Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq 2.61test7 & RA issues

[Simon Kelley]

On 25/03/12 22:12, Vladislav Grishenko wrote:
>> 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
>> [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.
> 
> 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.
> 

So, we're asserting that we need to support renumbering, is that simply
providing a way to deprecate prefixes by setting the preferred lifetime
to zero?


Cheers,

Simon