On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> > wrote: > I suppose we should just tunnel the whole IPv6 network over IPv4 + HTTP then. > > Seriously, the argument that 6to4 should be trashed because ISPs are blocking > tunnels has the flavor of "don't solve the problem, but rather, stamp out the > solution". > > Actually, this mostly happens in enterprise networks and universities. I > don't see why they would want to change this compared to, say, actually > deploying native IPv6.
Well if an enterprise network wants to firewall certain kinds of traffic, that's its own business. The fact that some enterprises firewall ip-over-ip tunnels is not a justification for IETF trashing one particular kind of ip tunnel. >> In a similar way as Geoff measured 6to4 - looking at SYNs. > > From where? Again, the tunnels aren't taking the variety of paths that 6to4 > connections are. It's that variety that makes measurements such as Geoff's > at all useful - it's what lets you at least believe that the measurements > made at a few points are representative of the whole. > > From the same place that he ran the 6to4 measurements from? See above. It's not a valid measurement. Or the measurement is fine, but comparisons between configured tunnels and 6to4 on the basis of such measurements are not valid. > A few months ago I was trying to set one up, but I ran out of time. I'm > really busy these days, and it's nowhere nearly as easy to set up a > configured tunnel as it is to set up 6to4. > > Go to http://tunnelbroker.net/ . I'm willing to bet that it will take a lot > less time than you have spent writing email on this thread. :-) That's who I was using before. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
