Subject: RE: Why people by NATs

From: "Peter Ford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:05:43 -0800

Hi Tony,

Your enclosed feature comparison list is a fine list.   However, the sooner the residential gateway feature set is expanded to cover support of  tunneling  IPv6 running on top IPv4 as a bearer, the faster you will see IPv6 deployed.   Why build in a dependancy on the carriers moving to IPv6 when you don't have to.

Here is the SAT test question related to IPv6 transition:

Q: IPv6 is to IPv4 as 

a) IPv4 to X.25

b) IPv4 to ISDN

c) IPv4 to ATM

d) all of the above

regards, peterf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:03:29 -0500 (EST)

> Your enclosed feature comparison list is a fine list.   However, the sooner the residential gateway feature set is expanded to cover support of  tunneling  IPv6 running on top IPv4 as a bearer, the…

Ok.  I'll bite.  Who do you propose to tunnel to by default in all these
embedded devices?  Do you give users a choice of tunnel brokers?  Does it
work "out of the box?"  Do you give them one address, or how large an
allocation, or what?

Scott

> Here is the SAT test question related to IPv6 transition:

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:56:14 -0800

shogunx wrote:
>  ...

RFC 3056 &/or draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt

See: www.threedegrees.com  for an IPv6-only application that already
leverages automated tunneling so the end user is completely unaware of IPv6
as a technology requirement. 

Tony