In message <BANLkTi=i6nssvj-ah2nbwpiz_jyhlc3...@mail.gmail.com>, Cameron Byrne writes: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wro= > te: > > On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a > >>> number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but, > >>> they also come with somewhat lower risks > >> > >> the good thing is 7 exists on networks that will never see the light > >> of day... so it's just like 10! only lower and cooler! (and lucky, if > >> you believe the movies and all) > > > > It's not just whether those networks will ever leak 7. =A0It's whether th= > e DoD will ever announce anything in 7. > > > > If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. =A0Wh= > ether they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet le= > ave Rogers' borders. > > > > Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique > IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the > 6to4-PMT solution. There is always a solution.
There is also the option of having customers that need 6to4, etc. just register on the web site like customers that need port 25/TCP open register with many ISPs. Those customers then get addresses from different pools for which 6to4 works. > Cameron > > > -- > > TTFN, > > patrick > > > > > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org