<html>
<body>
<font size=3><x-tab>
</x-tab>Steve,<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Do you
mean something like this?<br>
<a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/prod_presentation0900aecd80311dfc.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/prod_presentation0900aecd80311dfc.pdf</a>
<br><br>
Regards<br>
Patrick<br><br>
At 03:34 PM 6/19/2008, Steve Bertrand wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">><br>
> On 19 Jun 2008, at 04:58, David Conrad wrote:<br>
><br>
>>> That's mostly FUD. Support folks don't understand
IPv6, so<br>
>>> everything<br>
>>> is blamed there. Even broken IPv4 servers...<br>
>><br>
>> Err, no.<br>
>><br>
>> I have disabled IPv6 on my home network because my service
provider,<br>
>> Comcast (I'm one of 25 million customers), does not support
IPv6,<br>
>> but does allow the 6to4 anycast address to propagate.<br>
><br>
> I continue to be surprised that comcast doesn't spray a liberal set
of<br>
> 6to4 relay routers throughout their network, given their
efforts<br>
> elsewhere in making v6 work. (Allowing the well-known 6to4
relay<br>
> router prefix to propagate doesn't sound wrong, incidentally;
it's<br>
> surely not providing so-numbered relays closer to their
customers<br>
> which is silly.)<br>
><br>
> Assuming they have some ciscos in the packet path, this could be
done<br>
> with less than 10 lines of config, it seems to me. I'm sure there
are<br>
> flaming hoops of lab approval and peer review to go through, but
it<br>
> seems to me like work that would pay for itself in reduced
support<br>
> costs fairly quickly.<br><br>
Said 10 lines of sample config would be nice to review for people who
have<br>
read the RFC's, but have not had the chance to actually implement such
a<br>
thing, but do have a small lab to test in...<br><br>
Steve</font></blockquote></body>
</html>