From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Oct 28 12: 0:47 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.93.168])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBD137B479
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1])
        by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02393;
        Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200010281900.PAA02393@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
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) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:22:50 +0200."
             <200010281622.SAA29597@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> 
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:00:22 -0400
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> => 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