Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:00:22 -0400 From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> Cc: Brian Zill <bzill@microsoft.com>, "'f.johan.beisser'" <jan@caustic.org>, Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com>, snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: 6over4 for KAME (FreeBSD) Message-ID: <200010281900.PAA02393@astro.cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:50 %2B0200." <200010281622.SAA29597@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> => Cisco supported this but this was removed... Obviously 6to4 (a *different* > thing) is far more popular (for bad reasons IMHO). 6to4 and 6over4 solve different problems; there's very little overlap in their applicability. So if there is more interest in 6to4 than 6over4 it may be only a reflection that it is easier to upgrade a private intranet to support native IPv6 (thus bypassing 6over4) than to upgrade the public Internet to support native IPv6. Keith To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010281900.PAA02393>