On 2011-Jun-06 14:38, Oliver Schad wrote: > Am Monday 06 June 2011 schrieb mir Jeroen Massar: >> On 2011-Jun-06 14:17, Oliver Schad wrote: >>> Am Monday 06 June 2011 schrieb mir Adrian Kägi: >>>> Thx for your replies! Wow! >>>> I see, there are tons of vendors! >>>> But when they support IPv6 or 6to4 IP6 Tunnel and so on... does they >>>> support the 6rd concept? >>> >>> 6to4 and 6rd are not the same and are not compatible. >> >> Actually they are very similar, both use protocol-41. >> >> The only differences between the two are how the prefix is calculated >> which is used for the tunnel endpoints and what the IPv4 address is of >> the remote tunnel endpoint. > > In short: they are not compatible.
On a Linux/*BSD box from 10 years ago you can configure both, for 6rd (which did not exist back then) you would just have to figure out the proper prefix, based on your IPv4 address, the IPv6 prefix and the relay address given by the provider, similarly for 6to4 you would based on 2002::/16 + IPv4 + relay. Oh and of course a normal static Protocol-41 tunnel which uses the IPv6 prefix given and a single remote tunnel endpoint. They both speak protocol-41, they both do full IPv6 in there too, thus they are fully compatible also. The only thing where it might not be compatible is the user interface for making it easy to configure them. The fun and joy of 6rd is of course that your IPv6 prefix changes every time you get a new IPv4 address. With IPv4 and NAT this did not matter so much to the internal network, but now when your IP address changes you need to renumber your home network, the joys of that will be awesome for people selling consultancy services and the likes. (Just take a guess when NAT66 becomes standard because of that) Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
