[Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq 2.61test7 & RA issues

Brad Smith brad at comstyle.com
Sun Mar 25 22:14:34 BST 2012


On 25/03/12 5:04 PM, Jan Seiffert wrote:
> 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.

6RD does not have the asymmetric routing issues of 6to4, but it is still
another poor transition mechanism that should not be used in a serious
production IPv6 environments and no ISP taking IPv6 seriously will use
it.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list