On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Kevin Day wrote: > 9) Once we started publishing AAAA records for a few sites, we started getting > complaints from some users that they couldn't reach the sites. Some > investigating showed that they had inadvertently enabled IPv6 on their desktop > without having any IPv6 connectivity.
I would hazard an educated guess that the majority of these users had actually enabled 6to4 via some OS-provided convenience, which *would* work if it weren't for (a) IPv4 NAT already widely used in "home router" appliances, resulting in bad 2002:0a00::/24 or 2002:c0a8::/32 addresses, and (b) many IPv6-capable providers not providing a 2002:: route, or at least not providing a *working* one, to the 6to4 islands. Fixing (b) would much allieviate the following when the 6to4 address in question would otherwise be reachable: > 11) Almost without fail, the path an IPv6 user takes to reach us (and > vice-versa) is less optimal than the IPv4 route. (If a user is implementing 6to4, it usually means that the v4 route *is* better, so 6to4 becomes a routing policy suggestion as well.) -- -- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>