Re: Routing with 6to4 *and* a tunnel
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:24:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:15:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > If my friend Joe, down the street on the Cable Network and I are both
> > doing IPv6, and we both have tunnels, then our traffic, which should
> > travel literally 10s of meters, will travel 100s of km instead.
> >
> > If we were both using 6to4, we would, as you say, automatically tunnel
> > between us.
> >
> > The reason to still have the tunnel, is just what you said: so that we
> > can talk to 2001::/16 space.
>
> Indeed. The only downside of 6to4 is that your subnet prefix changes
> with your public v4 address. If you don't have a static v4 address, then
> it'll be a bit less interesting to do, IMHO.
I suppose that depends on your application. With a proper radvd
setup, your network ought to withstand IP address changes. Of course,
long-standing TCP connections would fail.
> Of course, by properly setting up mobile IPv6 extensions, you could
> sidestep this issue and get the best of both worlds; but since mobile
> IPv6 requires a kernel patch and (IIUC) a working IPsec setup, this is
> too much of a PITA to set up currently, I think.
Indeed.
Reply to: