On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Donald McLachlan wrote: > [ BTW, does anyone know whether there is an implementation of GRE (or some > other tunnelling protocol) which allows IPv6 as both the delivery and the > payload protocol? As of March 2000 RFC-2784 says not. :-( If not the > tunnels may just be though the IPv4 Internet ... but since I believe much > of the 6Bone is interconnected this way, what's the diff ... other than > there is one less level of encapsulation. :-) ]
It seems to me that it if you don't mind what underlying transport you use, it would be better to use the IPv4 network rather than the IPv6 network. I think it is the case that for almost any two nodes, going via IPv6 will be longer[1] than going via IPv4. Reasons for using IPv6 might be that you specifically want to run IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnelling or that you know a particular route is faster over IPv6 than v4 or that you only have IPv6 connectivity to one of the end points. But in the absence of those reasons, IPv4 would seem better. > Of course when using ISDN, or SATCOM we would have true end-to-end > management of all the routers. One could argue semantics over this - you don't have management of the "routers" (='phone exchanges) on an ISDN network. Its just that they are called something different :-) [1]or equal -- Ben Clifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hawaga.org.uk/ben/ Currently seeking employment in Los Angeles: http://www.hawaga.org.uk/resume/ IPv6 only webserver at: http://edge.ipv6.hawaga.org.uk:81/ben/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 Users Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
