Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'd disagree with your 'by definition' (given the counterexample), > but sadly there is not enough native v6 around and we have to resort > to nasty hacks (tunneling). As much as I appreciate the likes of > SixXS, I really wish they were not required anymore ;)
In a world where PPP-over-Ethernet-over-ATM is the norm, adding an "IPv6 transport protocol" layer isn't all that absurd. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
