North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Creating demand for IPv6
On 3-Oct-2007, at 1907, <michael.dillon@xxxxxx> wrote:
I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what is wrong with the wording below? --- This is a transition mechanism in which the user configures a 6to4 client in their PC or home gateway. The 6to4 client requests dynamic tunnels
(not quite right; the client doesn't actually request anything)
from a 6to4 server which is found via the anycast address prefix 184.108.40.206/24 allocated in RFC 3068.
(most 6to4 implementations allow a relay router to be configured as an alternative to the RFC 3068 well-known relay router address. That address is exactly 220.127.116.11, incidentally; it's not something that needs to be found)
This tunnel then attaches the IPv4 host to the IPv6 network using the IPv6 address 2002:V4ADDR::/48. The mechanism is documented in RFC 3056.
(for an ISP's customers to find that relay it either needs to be explicitly configured in their client stacks, or it needs to be numbered 18.104.22.168 and the clients need to use the RFC 3068 address)
In addition, a content provider can also add IPv6 access to their services by configuring 6to4 on their network
(... and configuring all the servers and related infrastructure responsible for those services to use IPv6, using a 6to4 prefix. Note that this is not particularly different from any other kind of IPv6 transit a content provider might decide to arrange.)
. Again, by shortening the routing taken by one of the protocols,
(shortening the IPv4 path over which the tunnel is provisioned is clearer; I'm not sure in general what "shortening the routing" means)
you ensure that there is no tromboning of the path and network latency is close to the minimum possible.
I did not change anything on that page, either. For the record, that's because I have a screaming two-year-old trying to use me as a climbing wall right now.