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

[Pim van Pelt]

Hi,

| 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.
Why would you like to see my ISP announcing either 2002::/16 or
192.99.88/24 at all ? You state that you'd like me to put the /24 into
my IGP so my customers 'have a fast way out'. This seems like a good
idea, but I'm still seeing problems with the 2002::/16 thing, where my 
ASn will attract all sorts of IPv6 traffic to the prefix, and then
sending it back out in IPv4 over transit links. I do not really want to
be handling other ASn's IPv4 traffic so I refrain from advertising it
alltogether.

It has been a topic of debate at the ISP I work for, but we chose not to
get involved with 6to4 at all for the moment. It does not seem to
perform all that well, at least not last time I checked.

groet,
Pim
-- 
---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
-----------------------------------------------