[6bone] RE: Awareness of breaking RFC3056 with 6to4 more specifics

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Antonio Querubin wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> > Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@lava.net] wrote:
> > 
> > [cut off long list of people, except ml's]
> > 
> > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 2002:c058:6301::/48	192.88.99.1/32	AS786
> > > 
> > > > 192.88.99.1/32 is *THE* anycast address, it is *NOT* routable....
> > > > And you don't own it either, please read RFC3068 and stop that
> > > > foolish announcement. In whois.ripe.net this network is documented:
> > > 
> > > Whoa there!  Just because a block is anycast doesn't mean it's NOT
> > > routable.  It just means there may be multiple destinations 
> > > and multiple routes to those destinations.  Otherwise what use is it?
> > 
> > It's for making 2002::/16 reachable, not for making the IPv4 version
> > reachable over IPv6 ;)
> 
> Oops.  I thought you were advocating that 192.88.99.0 should never be
> announced.  Sorry for the misunderstanding :)

Au contraire mon ami :)

I would rather see more and more ISP's deploy anycast capable 6to4 relays.
They should then at least put the route into their IGP so that clients
employing 6to4 have a fast way out. It would also mean that the ISP
itself has some IPv6 deployment and could be looking into native
connectivity to the rest of the world, both being a good thing.

Greets,
 Jeroen


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP2QqHymqKFIzPnwjEQI4BgCeJqWbLHPX1IcaXUeL5qVP/MeCZlEAn2O3
26bfTL2i4mt5w8HSTx+ImodK
=I0+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----