[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:17:04PM -0500, Paul Timmins wrote:
> Something like this can become very useful for people trapped behind 
> firewalls that cannot yet do IPv6, and will be useful until IPv6 is 
> ubiquitous enough to garner enough support for all companies to support 
> IPv6 in production hardware.
> Also, I heard there are a few cablemodem providers that block non tcp/udp 
> protocols to prevent use of IPSEC by telecommuters and it breaks IPv6 over 
> IPv4. Shall these people just be isolated until their providers can get 
> their act together?
I would not choose such provider. It's bussiness. One provides, one not.
Your favourite transport company fly to XYZ doesn't imply all transport
companies fly to XYZ. Anyway, I have some computers behind NAT successfully
connected to 6bone over stunnel/ppp. Not so clean solution, but works.

> I could see this being useful to me. Hopefully the standard that is 
> published is the standard that Microsoft sticks to when implementing this 
> in a release of their OS, so it can be implemented by other platforms.
> My god, I'm not only thanking Microsoft, I'm sticking up for them too. What 
> is this world coming to?
I am not against Microsoft, just I don't like when *ANYONE* (not just
Microsoft) is breaking the rules.

I can also write some draft about tunneling IPv6 over proxy server or
anything other requiring another /16. It is as much necessary as Shipworm.
Really, there are some users with just connection to web proxy who may need
IPv6. Will you tolerate such "testing" without IANA agreement ?

Best Regards,

Jan Oravec
XS26 - 'Access to IPv6'
[email protected]