Connectivity issues and packet inspection

[Patrick Grossetete]

         Steve,

         Do you mean something like this?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/prod_presentation0900aecd80311dfc.pdf

Regards
Patrick

At 03:34 PM 6/19/2008, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> >
> > 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...
>
>Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20080619/14376410/attachment.htm>