Connectivity issues and packet inspection

Steve Bertrand steve at
Thu Jun 19 15:34:02 CEST 2008

> On 19 Jun 2008, at 04:58, David Conrad wrote:
>>> That's mostly FUD.  Support folks don't understand IPv6, so
>>> everything
>>> is blamed there.  Even broken IPv4 servers...
>> Err, no.
>> I have disabled IPv6 on my home network because my service provider,
>> Comcast (I'm one of 25 million customers), does not support IPv6,
>> but does allow the 6to4 anycast address to propagate.
> I continue to be surprised that comcast doesn't spray a liberal set of
> 6to4 relay routers throughout their network, given their efforts
> elsewhere in making v6 work. (Allowing the well-known 6to4 relay
> router prefix to propagate doesn't sound wrong, incidentally; it's
> surely not providing so-numbered relays closer to their customers
> which is silly.)
> Assuming they have some ciscos in the packet path, this could be done
> with less than 10 lines of config, it seems to me. I'm sure there are
> flaming hoops of lab approval and peer review to go through, but it
> seems to me like work that would pay for itself in reduced support
> costs fairly quickly.

Said 10 lines of sample config would be nice to review for people who have
read the RFC's, but have not had the chance to actually implement such a
thing, but do have a small lab to test in...


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list