Subject: Re: getting IPv6 space without ARIN (Re: PAT )

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:48:14 -0400

> From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>

    > For all the sites in the world who'd LIKE to be able to have an
    > upstream to provide IPv6, but for whom such doesn't exist ... some
    > one or few organizations should look into buying a block of IPv6
    > space, setting up a few routers which can handle lots of tunnels, and
    > build a virtual IPv6 upstream.

??? I thought 6to4 did basically just this - and even one single IPv4 address
at the 4to6 wrapping box provides a sizeable chunk of IPv6 address space
behind it (a /48, actually; enough to hold up to a fair-sized network).

	Noel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:49:13 -0500

> behind it (a /48, actually; enough to hold up to a fair-sized network).

Well yes, but the prefix is only any use if you find a 6to4 relay router
to handle your traffic (see Keith's earlier note).

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:40:32 -0400

> to handle your traffic (see Keith's earlier note).

to be even more specific, a 6to4 prefix can only be used to communicate
with other 6to4 sites unless/until you find a 6to4 relay router to handle
your traffic between your site and the native IPv6 world.

Keith

---

From: Paul Francis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:46:50 -0700

> your traffic between your site and the native IPv6 world.

Seems to me that it would all be so much simpler if you got rid of native
prefixes altogether and just ran everything over 6to4...

PF

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:53:40 -0400

> prefixes altogether and just ran everything over 6to4...

tunneling everything over IPv4 seems okay as a transition strategy 
(other people like it less than I do), but hardly seems like a good
solution for the long term. 

Keith