In message <20100831062203.be89e...@mail.wardenm.net>, "Mitchell Warden" writes : > > The list seems to be showing relays that announce both the IPv4 and the > > IPv6 anycast prefixes. > > > > I have noticed a number of deployments that announce the (in)famous IPv4 > > prefix and then consider their deployment complete. I suspect that there > > is a lack of 2002::/16 announcements and this would be contributing to > > the regular problems with return paths. > > > > Obviously the IPv6 content networks benefit the most from having a relay > > translating back to IPv4. > > > > Anyone have experience with this? > > > > -- > > Graham Beneke > > Is there a reason not to advertise more specific prefixes from 2002::/16 > to ensure that traffic for your v4 routes comes back to your own 6to4 > router? > > If for example all my users have v4 addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, I could > advertise 2002:C002:0000::/40 instead of or in addition to the full > 2002::/16. > > Cheers. > Mitchell Which would end up with the entire set of IPv4 routes in IPv6. This is not a good idea. Just do you part and encapuslate/decapsulate as soon as possible and let the other end do the same.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
