Just for the record, I like my host being the degenerate case of "6to4 site + site router all in one". This makes my life much easier, as I frequently need IPv6 connectivity and frequently have a public IP(v4) address (EVDO, FTW).
Having said that - what applies to me may well not be the common case. (Just wanted to state this in case MS is listening and was thinking about removing the functionality. I think the right approach is to detect the failure (s) when they occur, not to remove the functionality) /TJ >-----Original Message----- >From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:05 PM >To: Nathan Ward >Cc: nanog list >Subject: Re: IPv6 routing /48s > >Nathan Ward wrote: >> The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 = >> unfiltered/unNATed for the purposes of 6to4. >> Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I >> suppose >> - it's supposed to be used on routers. >> > >While I don't doubt that the 6to4 is broken in such circumstances, how many >IPv6 content providers are using 6to4 addressing and not 2001:: >addressing? 6to4 by default on xp and vista, in my experience, is only used >if a) talking to another 6to4 address or b) there is no IPv4 address >available. > >6to4 never seemed like a viable method for content providing, though its use >at the eyeball layer is somewhat iffy given that it's primary use is for >other 6to4 addresses. If prefix policies are altered to use it for >2001:: addressing, problems start arising quickly. > >A good example is that traceroutes through my he.net tunnel using 6to4 >source addresses do not get replies through he.net's network, presumably due >to their routers not being 6to4 aware and having no route to respond. >Responses pick up again after picking up a network such as NTT that is 6to4 >aware. My 2001:: addressing works just fine the entire route. > >I'm sure there's quite a few networks that aren't 6to4 aware, hindering >6to4 connectivity to non-6to4 addresses. > >Jack
