IPv6 ingress filtering

Brian Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed May 15 12:01:44 CEST 2019

Well yes, there must be a return path, otherwise Amos would see no traffic.
Nobody is suggesting to *promote* 6to4, just no need to filter it.

    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Wed, 15 May 2019, 21:56 Ole Troan, <otroan at employees.org> wrote:

> > Anycast 6to4 needed to be assassinated, and that has more or less
> happened. If classical unicast 6to4 is still working for a few people, I
> don't really see any harm in it. Of course I agree that native is better.
> As far as I can tell there is really no flavour of 6to4 that can be
> deployed in a way where it works well.
> Even without the anycast IPv4 route, the far end IPv6 node would have to
> have a good route back to 2002::/16.
> If automatic tunnels are required 6RD contains all of the 6to4 issues
> within the ISP.
> Cheers,
> Ole
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20190515/18377d3a/attachment.html 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list