Native IPv6 & 6rd (Was: On 6to4 gateway and recommended MTU setting)

Rickman, Phil phrickman at
Fri Mar 12 01:13:51 CET 2010

well that really deems no reply.

From: at [ at] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar [jeroen at]
Sent: 11 March 2010 19:34
To: Rickman, Phil
Cc: holger.zuleger at; ipv6-ops at
Subject: Native IPv6 & 6rd (Was: On 6to4 gateway and recommended MTU setting)

Rickman, Phil wrote:
> You cant go full native without massive application incompatibility

With 'native' most people mean dual-stack: native IPv4 + native IPv6.
Where the 'native' means that if you have ethernet that both IPv4 and
IPv6 are directly on top of that, without any extra secret magic layers
in between. Apologies if you understood differently.

Deploying IPv6-only is a silly thing, though there might be scenarious
where people want that, then one will have to go the CGN/IVI etc road.

> Embedded IPv4 addresses etc ... with only 5% of "potential" content
> available for standard users let alone IP based VPN clients, RDP,
> the list is endless of what breaks when you leave dual stack.

RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) actually works like a charm as Microsoft
nicely upgraded all their important tools to understand IPv6.

Also, see above, in the case of IPv6-only: one will have to do CGN/IVI
alike tricks.

>  You
> also have issues with bi-directional routing, DR & LI, DNS64
preferences .....
> And Holger is right 6rd has the same its own personal problems.

Please provide the list of issues to the writers of the 6rd RFC, I am
sure they would love to know about them.

Do realize that most transition mechanisms solve a specific issue as
such they won't make everybody happy.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list